2021-TIOL-1303-HC-GUW-CX
Calcom Cement India Ltd Vs UoI
CX - Notification No. 20/2007-CE dated 25.04.2007 - Notification No. 20/2008-CE dated 27.03.2008 - Petitioner applied for registration of its unit under North East Industrial and Investment Policy (NEIIP) 2007 for availing benefit under the said Industrial Policy, 2007 including exemption of 100% Central Excise Duty which was granted by the General Manager, DIC, Nagaon - Petitioner has challenged an order dated 09.04.2021 passed by the Principal Commissioner, GST, Guwahati, the respondent No. 2 thereby rejecting an application of the petitioner seeking for special rate fixation on the ground of delay.
Held: Bench is satisfied that the issue raised in this writ petition requires further hearing - Notice issued - Notices are made returnable after four weeks - Until further orders, the operation of the order dated 09.04.2021 and the operation of the demand cum recovery notice/ attachment notice issued to the respondent No. 5 dated 05.02.2021 are stayed: High Court
- Interim order issued: GAUHATI HIGH COURT
2021-TIOL-1302-HC-MAD-CUS
Vishnu Clothing Company Vs CC
Cus - Petitioner is challenging the order impugned in original passed by the second respondent dated 27.03.2021 - Inspite of the fact that a statutory appeal is contemplated under the Customs Act, the petitioner has chosen to file the present writ petition mainly on the ground that the procedures as contemplated are not followed and the Principles of Natural Justice has been violated.
Held: Court is of the considered opinion that statutory appellate remedy provided under the Act is a valuable right conferred on a litigant - Thus, such a right cannot be dispensed with in a routine manner, even by the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India - Facilitating an aggrieved person to prefer an appeal, has got a definite meaning and an opportunity is provided to consider the original documents and the grounds raised by the aggrieved parties - Therefore, the appellate remedy contemplated under the statute cannot be dispensed with in a routine manner in a writ proceedings - In all such cases, the appeal remedy is to be exhausted by the aggrieved person by following the procedures as contemplated - The appellate authorities are competent to grant even the interim orders and consider the appeal on merits by affording opportunity to all the parties - Thus, entertaining a writ petition in the presence of an appellate remedy is not preferable - Court has elaborately considered the issues with reference to preferring a statutory appeal before approaching the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India in judgment dated 15.04.2021 in W.P.No.3144 of 2016 [ 2021-TIOL-960-HC-MAD-CUS ] and held that the petitioners are bound to exhaust the appellate remedy, either under Section 128 or Section 129 of the Customs Act, respectively - Writ petition stands dismissed: High Court [para 7, 9, 10]
- Petition dismissed: MADRAS HIGH COURT
2021-TIOL-1301-HC-MAD-CUS
Accoladee Vs CC
Cus - Writ Petition is filed seeking quashing the impugned order dated 09.09.2020 passed by the 1st respondent and to direct the first respondent to permit conversion of the shipping bills dated 08.09.14 from 'drawback shipping bills to drawback-cum-advance authorization' shipping bills.
Held: Petitioner had exported garments under Shipping Bills dated 08.09.2014, under DBK Scheme and the said shipping bills were cleared for export under RMS, without any examination and LEO granted on 09.09.2014 - Request for conversion of 'drawback shipping bill' to 'drawback-cum-advance authorization shipping bill' was given as early as on 08.12.2014, within three months from the date of export - The contention of the Revenue counsel that the request for conversion of 'drawback shipping bill' to 'drawback-cum-advance authorization shipping bill' said to have been filed by the petitioner on 08.12.2014 before the Custom House, Tuticorin could not be traced after lapse of five years and six months cannot be accepted by this Court - It is to be noted that since there was no response from the 1st respondent, the petitioner submitted a grievance in Centralized Public Grievance Redressal System and the same was also disposed of by rejecting the request of the petitioner for conversion of the shipping bills - It is unfortunate on the part of the respondent that without considering the petitioner's request in a true spirit and without giving any opportunity to the petitioner, the impugned order came to be passed - In view of the same, the impugned order dated 09.09.2020 passed by the first respondent is set aside and the matter is remanded back to the first respondent for fresh consideration - exercise is to be completed within a period of six weeks - Writ Petition is allowed: High Court [para 6, 7]
- Petition allowed: MADRAS HIGH COURT
2021-TIOL-316-CESTAT-CHD
PSG Steels Pvt Ltd Vs CCE & ST
CX - Interest on delayed refund - Revenue submitted that if the appellant is entitled to claim interest, then he is entitled to for same after three months from 14.09.2005 till 31.10.2008, as on the said date, the refund claim has been sanctioned - It is apparent on record that the said refund was sanctioned but was adjusted against demand which was not sustained - Thus, the contention revenue is not acceptable - Therefore, in view of the decision in case of Ranbaxy Laboratories Limited 2011-TIOL-105-SC-CX , it is held that the appellant is entitled to claim interest after three months from the date of filing of the refund claim, i.e., after 3 months of date of filing the refund claim till its realization: CESTAT
- Appeal allowed: CHANDIGARH CESTAT |
