2021-TIOL-937-HC-DEL-NDPS
Nastor Farirai Ziso Vs NCB
NDPS - Petitioner has applied for grant of regular bail - Petitioner/accused was apprehended at IGI Airport when she was going to Zambia and 19.3 Kg. of pseudo ephedrine hydrochloride was recovered from her baggage - The petitioner/accused in her statement u/s 67 N.D.P.S. Act admitted the recovery and disclosed that she came to India on request of her friend and the bags concealing the said bags was given by her friend IKE - Petitioner is in custody since her date of arrest on 13.07.2019 and the charges have already been framed.
Held: Substance alleged to have been recovered from the petitioner/accused is 19.3 Kg. of pseudo ephedrine hydrochloride which is a controlled substance - It has been rightly submitted that it is neither a narcotic drug nor a psychotropic substance under the NDPS Act; that the alleged offences are not punishable with death or imprisonment for life - The offence falling u/s 9A r/w section 25A of the NDPS Act is punishable with imprisonment which may extend to 10 years and also fine which may also extend to Rs. 1 Lakh and the bar of Section 37 is not attracted in the present case as the substance recovered is a controlled substance within the meaning of Section 2( viid ) of the Act - In view of the judgments [ Gudikanti Narasimhulu and Others Vs. Public Prosecutor 1978 AIR SC 429 & Sartori Livio vs. State 2005 (80) DRJ 482 ], there is no bar for releasing foreign national on bail, if the case so warrants – As the bar of section 37 of the NDPS Act is not applicable, therefore, the petitioner/accused who is in J.C. since 13.07.2019 is admitted to bail on her furnishing personal bond in the sum of Rs.1,00,000/- with two solvent sureties each of the like amount subject to the satisfaction of the trial Court - Being released on bail, the petitioner shall inform the NCB Office, the address at which she will reside during the period she is on bail - Any change in the address shall also be communicated to the NCB Office within 2 days - The petitioner shall report to the NCB office once in a week till the conclusion of the trial - The petitioner shall not leave the limits of NCT of Delhi without prior permission of the Trial Court - With these directions, the application stands disposed of: High Court [para 10, 14, 17] - Petition allowed : DELHI HIGH COURT 2021-TIOL-935-HC-DEL-CUS Nagina International Vs UoI
Cus - The concerned officer needs to revert with regard to one supplier, who has, presently, been categorised as a 'risky supplier' - The petitioner is seeking refund of IGST/ITC to the tune of Rs.1,33,95,749/- along with interest - Therefore, court is not able to appreciate as to why the entire amount is stuck - Short accommodation is granted to revenue to enable him to revert with instructions: HC
- Matter listed: DELHI HIGH COURT
2021-TIOL-925-HC-DEL-NDPS
Bobby Collin Vs NCB
NDPS - Petitioner, a South African national who is in custody since 31.03.2015 and is facing trial in SC No. 9164/2016 for allegedly committing offences under Sections 21 & 23 of NDPS Act is seeking regular bail - 65 pellets/capsules of cocaine totalling 1.320 kg concealed inside petitioner's body - Petitioner points out various infirmities in the prosecution case.
Held: Petitioner has approached this Court when only one prosecution witness remains to be examined and trial is at the fag end - Prosecution evidence is yet to be concluded and testimonies of other witnesses are not before this Court, hence, it would not be worthwhile to scrutinize the statements of these two witnesses in piecemeal - Furthermore, in what way and manner the prosecution failed to follow the procedure prescribed under the Act, can be established by the petitioner during his evidence in defence - The pleas so urged before this Court can also be agitated before the trial court at the time of final arguments - In the aforesaid view of the matter, without going into the merits of the case, this petition is accordingly dismissed: High Court [para 28, 29]
- Petition dismissed: DELHI HIGH COURT
2021-TIOL-225-CESTAT-MAD
Shree Vaibhavalakshmi Overseas Vs CC
Cus - The issue arises is, whether the Commissioner (Appeals) was correct in rejecting the first appeal as time-barred - The Revenue has not placed on record the acknowledgement due after having served/communicated the O-I-O to the appellant and hence the date of communication as claimed by appellant, has to be accepted - Any order normally would be sent by Registered Post with Acknowledgement Due (RPAD), which would have been the case here also followed by the Adjudicating Authority - So, when the O-I-O was dispatched by RPAD in terms of Section 153 of Customs Act, 1962, the acknowledgement must have come back, which is not placed on record - In any case, the service of the same on the very same day can also not be accepted since the location of the appellant is in a different State - There was no delay in filing the first appeal and therefore, the Commissioner (Appeals) was in error in rejecting the appeal as time-barred - When there was no delay, there is no requirement in law for filing any application for condoning the delay - Matter is remanded to the file of Commissioner (Appeals) to hear the appellant and pass an order on merits in accordance with law: CESTAT
- Matter remanded: CHENNAI CESTAT
2021-TIOL-224-CESTAT-DEL
Vishnu Fragrance Pvt Ltd Vs CCGST, CE & C
CX - The appellant is engaged in manufacture of chewing tobacco and admittedly falls under Compounded Levy Scheme vide Notification No. 11/2010-C.E . (N.T.) r/w Section 3 A of CEA, 1944 - The issue arises is, whether penalty has been rightly imposed under Rule 18 r/w Rule 16 of Chewing Tobacco and Unmanufactured Tobacco Packing Machines (Capacity Determination and Collection of Duty) Rules, 2010 r/w Section 11AC of Central Excise Act, 1944, for alleged contravention of Rule 10 - Rule 10 of 2010 Rules, provides for abatement in case of non-production of goods - The appellant, being engaged in production during period December, 2010 to 31.01.2011, admittedly have not sought for any abatement, and are not entitled to any abatement under Rule 10 of 2010 Rules - Thus, the view of the Department that first proviso of Rule 2010 is attracted is misconceived - Where a Rule is not attracted, the proviso thereunder does not attract - Under the Rules of Interpretation, a proviso is sub-servent to the Rule and does not override the provisions of Rule, of which it is a proviso - Accordingly, 1st proviso to Rule 10 of 2010 Rules is not attracted - Accordingly, the impugned order is set aside: CESTAT
- Appeal allowed: DELHI CESTAT |
