2021-TIOL-1024-HC-MAD-CUS

Hyder Ali Noor Mohamed Vs Asstt CC

Cus - The petitioner intends to move the statutory authorities seeking interim protection as indicated by this Court on 09.03.2021 and thus this writ petition is not pursued - Status quo granted by this Court on 09.03.2021 will continue for a period of two weeks: HC

- Writ petition closed: MADRAS HIGH COURT

2021-TIOL-1021-HC-P&H-ST

Balaji Manpower Services Vs UoI

ST - Petition has been preferred for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing/modification of order dated 06.08.2020 passed by Settlement Commission, to the extent of demand of interest in accordance with Notification No. 13/2016-ST dated 01.03.2016 - Petitioner has submitted that Clause 1 of the notification provides that interest rate @ 24% shall be charged if a person has specifically collected service tax and still not deposited with the Government but interest would be charged @ 15% in any other case; that since in the invoices issued during the period in question, petitioner did not collect any amount specifically mentioning it as service tax, the rate of interest chargeable is @15%:

Held: It is clear from the reproduction that the notification fixed the rate of simple interest @ 24% in case where any amount is specifically collected as service tax and still not deposited with the Central Government on or before the date on which such payment became due whereas rate of 15% is fixed for any other situation - In the case in hand, it is the specific stand of petitioner that it did not specifically collect the tax from the service recipients - The respondents have quantified interest 24% per annum on the basis of Notification dated 01.03.2016 presuming that the petitioner has specifically collected some amount as service tax and still not deposited with Central Government, whereas the petitioner, in the invoices issued during the period in question did not collect any amount specifically mentioning it as service tax - The grant of benefit of cum-tax value vide order dated 03.10.2019 passed by this Court in CWP No.1502 of 2018 = 2019-TIOL-2432-HC-P&H-ST , further supports the case of the petitioner - In this view of the matter, Bench is of the considered view that action of the respondents to charge interest @ 24% in accordance with Notification dated 01.03.2016 is arbitrary and not sustainable in the eyes of law - Impugned order is modified accordingly: High Court

- Petition allowed: PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT

2021-TIOL-1020-HC-MP-CX

Gabriel India Ltd Vs UoI

CX - SVLDRS, 2019 - Penalty - Rule 25 of CER - Petition filed against order of rejection of the petitioner's SVLDRS application on the alleged ground of ineligibility - Petitioner submits that the reason given in the order is vague and inadequate and seeks quashing of the same .

Held: Impugned order which is sketchy in nature and does not assign adequate reasons, is set aside. The matter is remitted back to the respondent department to reconsider the case of the petitioner by taking into account the judgement of Gujarat High Court in the case of Messrs Synpol Products P. Ltd. = 2020-TIOL-1493-HC-AHM-CX - A fresh decision is to be taken by the department expeditiously - In the event, the petitioner is able to show that there exists any enabling provision/law which permits him to get a personal hearing, it will be lawful for the department to provide opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner - Petition disposed of: High Court

- Matter remanded: MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT

2021-TIOL-1019-HC-DEL-CUS

Vishesh Jain Vs DRI

Cus - Alleged under-valuation of white paper roll imported - DRI alleges that the value of imported goods is declared as Rs.1,40,27,815/- while the correct value of the goods is Rs.4,23,02,119/-; that when the accounts of the past years were examined, it was found that the petitioner had been involved in the under-valuation of goods to the tune of Rs.13 crores - Petitioner seeks grant of anticipatory bail in the event of arrest in the case by DRI.

Held: All the documents are in the custody of the Customs - When specifically asked as to why Customs Authorities require the custody of the petitioner, no specific answer is forthcoming - The allegation that the petitioner is involved in transfer of money through non-banking/hawala channels is a subject matter of investigation by another authority and as and when and if and when investigation in this regard is initiated by other authorities to prove the involvement of the petitioner in the transfer of money through non-banking/hawala channels they can arrest the petitioner if a case is registered against him - Since this issue is not germane to the facts of the present petition, this Court is not inclined to go into this issue - The petitioner has been granted protection by this Court on 05.02.2021 - The petitioner stated that he is prepared to join the investigation - If the petitioner is required for investigation, then an appropriate notice under Section 41A of the Cr.P.C can be given to him directing to appear/join the investigation - Court is inclined to grant bail in the event of arrest to the petitioner subject to conditions as mentioned: High Court [para 8, 9]

- Application disposed of: DELHI HIGH COURT