2021-TIOL-818-HC-P&H-CUS

Chander Parkash Vs State Of Haryana

Cus - Gold (Control) Act, 1968 - If this court were to interpret that because of the repeal of the Gold (Control) Act, 1968, all proceedings taken thereunder as had already become final prior to its repealment in 1990, it would amount to directing that all action taken during the 22 years of the operation of that Act, would be null and void and therefore any penalty etc. imposed and all gold recovered during such period would be liable to be returned to the persons from whom it was confiscated - Obviously, that would not seem to be what was intended by the judgment/order of the Supreme Court in Sushila N. Rungtas's case - Petitioners cannot suddenly turn around and say that despite the conviction of petitioner no. 1 having become final and in fact even the order confiscating the gold having become final in the year 1980, the gold now be returned to them simply because the Gold (Control) Act, 1968, was repealed in the year 1990 - As per clause (b) of Section 6 of the General Clauses Act, a repeal of a statute would not affect the previous operations of such enactment or even affect anything duly done under its provisions or any consequence suffered thereunder - Hence, even though it has been held in Rungtas ' case that Section 6 of the General Clauses Act would not be applicable in the circumstances of that case, (reference the opening line of paragraph 7 of that judgment), yet, in the present case, in which the conviction of the first petitioner herein already became final in the year 1980 with the order of confiscation of gold also having become final at that stage itself, again it would have to be interpreted that what has been held in Rungtas ' case would be an exercise of jurisdiction under Article 142 of the Constitution of India - There being no savings clause or any substantive provision in the Gold (Control) Repeal Act, 1990, to the effect that all action taken during the validity of the said Act would stand reversed, or that the gold seized during the validity of the Act be returned to the person from which it was seized, the contention of the petitioners in that regard cannot be accepted at all - no ground to entertain this petition, which is consequently dismissed: High Court [para 20, 21, 22, 23]

- Petition dismissed: PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT

2021-TIOL-195-CESTAT-MAD

Royal Imports And Exports Vs CC

Cus - The appellant had filed Bill of Entry for import of 54,000 kgs of "Areca Nuts" from Sri Lanka - The Single Window Interface routed the said Bill of Entry to PQ/FSSAI clearance as the imported goods is an edible product - The FSSAI rejected the import cargo under Section 25(1)(i) of Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006, as the sample did not conform to the standards laid down under Regulation 2.3.55 of Food Safety and Standards Regulations, 2011 - The lower authority ordered confiscation of said imported cargo under Section 111(d) of Customs Act, 1962 r/w provisions of Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006 and the Food Safety and Standards Regulations, 2011, gave an option to pay fine in lieu of confiscation under Section 125 of Customs Act, 1962 for the purpose of re-export only and imposed a penalty on the appellant under Section 112(a) of Customs Act, 1962 - An identical issue came up for consideration before Tribunal in case of M/s. O.M.S. Sivajothi Mills 2019-TIOL-2607-CESTAT-MAD - Facts being identical, the said case would squarely apply to the case on hand - The redemption fine charged under Section 125 of Customs Act, 1962 is unsustainable and the same is deleted - Coming to the issue of levy of penalty under Section 112(a) of Customs Act, 1962, a mere importation that would render such goods liable to confiscation, is sufficient to attract penalty - Therefore, the case on hand gets covered under the mischief of Section 112(a) ibid - However, considering the undisputed bona fides of appellant, the penalty imposed under Section 112(a) of the Customs Act, 1962 is reduced: CESTAT

- Appeal partly allowed: CHENNAI CESTAT

Nayara Energy Ltd Vs CCE & ST

CX - The issue involved is that whether the appellant is entitled for Cenvat Credit on various input services, i.e., Air Travel Agent, Club or Association, Event Management, Fashion Designing, Franchise Service, Interior Decorator, Outdoor Catering, Rail Travel Agent, Renting of immovable property, Rent-a-cab Operator, Tour Operator and Travel Agent Services - The adjudicating authority in respect of most of the services denied the credit on the ground that no evidence was produced by appellant to prove that the services were availed by them and also on the ground that there is no nexus between the services with the manufacture and clearance of goods or for their business activity - All the services per se are prima facie input services held in various judgments, however, the admissibility of Cenvat credit on these services can be decided on the basis that whether the services were used for the purpose specified in definition of input service - The appellant along with this appeal submitted various documents such as invoices, CA certificates but since the said documents were not considered by lower authority, the denial of credit is not correct as the same is on presumption basis - Therefore, matter remanded to the adjudicating authority to pass a de novo order: CESTAT

- Matter remanded: AHMEDABAD CESTAT

Sikar Ex-Serviceman Welfare Co-Operative Society Ltd Vs CCE & ST

ST - The appellant is registered and engaged in rendering services covered under category of Manpower Recruitment and Supply Agency/Security/Detective Agency Service - The Department came to know that despite providing the taxable service of Manpower Recruitment and Supply Agency Services, the appellants were neither paying the due Service Tax nor were filing the ST-3 Returns - Vide a SCN, the Demand alongwith the proportionate penalty and the interest was proposed to be recovered from the appellant - The appellant have admitted their omission for not paying the Service Tax despite they being registered under Service Tax - The services rendered by them being taxable in nature, it is held that the demand has rightly been confirmed by adjudicating authority - However, for the demand of Rs. 1.12 Lakh qua the services being rendered to Kendriya Vidhyalays, the benefit of the Notification No. 25/2012-S.T. extended in favour of appellant and the said demand is set aside - Penalty upon the appellant Society has been upheld - However the penalties upon the office bearers thereof are held not sustainable and are hereby set aside: CESTAT

- Appeals partly allowed: DELHI CESTAT