|
2021-TIOL-963-HC-MAD-CUS
Aristo Shipping Services Vs Pr.CC
Cus - The petitioner has challenged an order passed on 19.11.2020 imposing penalty under Regulation 18 r/w Regulation 14 of CBLR, 2018 for alleged violation of Regulations 10(a) and 10(n) of the CBLR, 2018 - The challenge to the impugned order is on the ground of gross violation of the timelines that have been imposed under Regulation 17 and the legal question that arises is as to whether the timelines are mandatory or directory - This issue has been considered in a slew of decisions rendered by this Court and which have been noticed by a Division Bench of this Court earlier - The Bench notices and discusses various orders passed by Chennai Bench of CESTAT as well as by this Court on the identical issue and concludes that once the limitation prescribed is held to be mandatory, then the force of that mandate would have to be adhered to strictly - Moreover and additionally, the CBEC in Circular No. 9/2010-Cus . has set out an overall time limit for completion of suspension proceedings against a license holder - Evidently, the purpose is to ensure that suspension is not indefinite and proceedings are completed promptly so as to cause the least prejudice to the parties concerned - In this case this constitutes the fourth violation of the time limits - In the case dealt with by the Division Bench, there was a violation only of one timeline whereas, as noticed by this court earlier, in the present case the time lines set out have been violated not once, but on four occasions - Thus, the impugned order has no legs to stand, particularly, since there is no dispute on the sequence of events or the dates on which the events have transpired - The impugned order is thus quashed: HC
- Writ petition allowed :MADRAS HIGH COURT
2021-TIOL-962-HC-DEL-CUS
Swadeshi Civil Infrastructure Pvt Ltd Vs UoI
Cus - The petitioner says that the order of adjudication whereby, the demand has been dropped, has been passed by an officer not competent to issue such an order - That the adjudication order has been passed by Addl. Commissioner (Adjudication), CGST, Delhi (East) while the competent officer, who should have passed the order is Commissioner (Adjudication), CGST, Delhi (East) - The other grievance of petitioner is that, in the said order, a typographical error has crept inasmuch as Mr. Hriday Singh, on whose instructions, Ms. Sonu Bhatnagar and Mr. Harpreet Singh made the statement on aforesaid date, has been referred to as an officer of the Income Tax Department - The grievance raised by petitioner with regard to the competency need not detain this court, as, in effect, the contesting respondents have taken the position that the demand made against the petitioner no longer subsists - It is only when, the contesting respondents were to recall and/or review the order, this aspect may gain significance, and, at that point in time, the petitioner would be entitled to contest the matter and perhaps, revive the writ petition - Liberty, in that behalf, is granted in the event such a situation arises - Insofar as petitioner's grievance, as regards the typographical error, is concerned, he is right - Consequently, the impugned order shall stand corrected to the extent that Mr. Hriday Singh's rank would be shown as Assistant Commissioner, CGST: HC
- Application disposed of :DELHI HIGH COURT
2021-TIOL-234-CESTAT-DEL Baldeep Singh Vs CC
Cus - Revenue seized post parcels imported from China not bearing the name of consignor - The parcels were addressed to the appellant - As the goods were liable for confiscation, the same were seized - Summons were issued in the name of appellant - The case of appellant is that the SCN nor any communication like summons or notice, nothing was served on him - Thus, the ex-parte O-I-O is wholly without jurisdiction and a nullity - That neither he is the importer nor have claimed the goods seized by the Revenue - Further, there is no record that the appellant have been indulging in any such import(s) amounting to smuggling - Inspite of opportunity given, Revenue failed to produce the proof of delivery of the SCN - Further, from perusal of O-I-O, it is found that the Adjudicating Authority have not recorded satisfaction of service of SCN and have proceeded to pass the ex-parte O-I-O, which is held to be a nullity in the eyes of law - Substituted service by way of affixation on the notice board of the Department is by way of last resort - Without identifying the noticee, nor taking any reasonable measures of any substituted service as mentioned in clause (d) and (e) of Section 153(1), the Adjudicating Authority have proceeded to pass ex-parte adjudication order - For passing a valid adjudication order, valid service of SCN is essential - Accordingly, there is no valid service of SCN - Thus, the O-I-O is held without authority of law - The impugned order is set aside: CESTAT
- Appeal allowed: DELHI CESTAT
2021-TIOL-233-CESTAT-DEL
GK Tobacco Industries Pvt Ltd Vs CCGST
CX - The appellant who is engaged in the manufacture of Pan Masala and Chewing tobacco had filed two refund claims for the manufacture of March, 2015 and April, 2015 - Both of his refund claims have been allowed along with interest at the rate of 6% - The appellant's grievance is about the rate of interest that it may be fixed at the rate of 12% - In view of the notification existing as on date, i.e., No. 24/2014 vide which the Government has exercised its power even under Section 35FF of Central Excise Act, 1944, for fixing the rate of interest that the said rate has specifically been fixed at the rate of 6% per annum - Three of the decisions as relied upon are of the period prior to the Notification No. 24/2014 - Keeping in view the same, no infirmity found in the order of Adjudicating Authority - No interference is deemed required: CESTAT
- Appeal dismissed: DELHI CESTAT |
|
