2021-TIOL-1357-HC-MAD-CUS
Schiller Healthcare India Pvt Ltd Vs Asstt. CC
Cus - Challenge is to an order of assessment on the ground that it is not preceded by a pre-assessment notice or show cause notice. Held: In the present case, the Revenue has not placed on record any proof for receipt of acknowledgement of the show cause notice alleged to have been sent via Registered Post Acknowledgement Due (RPAD) - Service by indirect methods, such as publication and affixture S.153 (1) (d) and (e) must be only after service by direct means set out in Section 153(1)(a),(b) and (c) have been attempted and established to have failed - Impugned order has been passed in violation of the principles of natural justice hence the same is set aside and the Writ Petition is allowed: High Court [para 7, 8]
- Petition allowed: MADRAS HIGH COURT
2021-TIOL-339-CESTAT-AHM
Majhar Muzaffar Hussain Sayed Vs CC
Cus - The appellants have been dealing in imported goods/cigarettes as alleged in impugned order - On Re-stuffing the container under Panchnama, it was found to contain white woven PP bags containing 'Readymade Garments' and white PP bags were containing 2 corrugated boxes with cigarettes which were not declared in IGM and therefore the same were placed under seizure - The entire case is based on statements - The charges have also been established on the basis of these statements - All three noticees have denied any knowledge of transaction of presence of cigarettes in the containers - There is no specific primary evidence produced by revenue, except the statements, to establish that the noticees were aware of presence of cigarettes in the container - Appellants had demanded cross-examination of witnesses however the same was not allowed - Since there is no major evidence other than the statements produced - Since Cross-examination is not granted, the impugned order is set aside and matter is remanded: CESTAT
- Matter remanded: AHMEDABAD CESTAT
2021-TIOL-338-CESTAT-DEL
Vishnu Fragrance Pvt Ltd Vs CCGST & CE
CX - The appellant was engaged in manufacture of chewing tobacco - As the appellant was entitled to install a new automatic packing machine (form-fill-seal) w.e.f. 01.04.2010, as required under CT Rules, 2010, filed the declaration in Form-1 in the last week of March, 2010 - As there was some technical issue with the said machine, appellant at the end of April returned the machine to its manufacturer who supplied another packing machine on 30.04.2010, which was by way of replacement, to be installed and operated w.e.f. 01.05.2010 - The appellant, due to replacement of machine, filed fresh declaration in prescribed form-1 on 03.05.2010 - It was alleged by Revenue vide SCN that apparently the declaration dated 30.03.2010 in Form-1 was incorrect as the new machine installed from 01.04.2010 appears to be 'double track machine' and accordingly based on the presumption, differential duty was demanded - Further, penalty was also proposed under Rule 18 - Under the scheme of CT Rules, 2010 r/w Section 3A of the Act, unless the declaration filed by a manufacturer is found to be untrue or false, no demand for additional duty can be raised - Admittedly, the Department have not found any case of misdeclaration or any other misgiving on the part of appellant - The whole case of Revenue is made out on the basis of assumptions and presumptions, based on the subsequent machine installed in the month of May, 2010, which is not permissible under the scheme of Chewing & Unmanufactured Tobacco Packing Machine (Capacity Determination & Collection of Duty) Rules, 2010 - The order determining duty liability dated 26.04.2010 has not been appealed, and as such the same is binding on the Department - Impugned order is set aside: CESTAT
- Appeal allowed: DELHI CESTAT
2021-TIOL-337-CESTAT-BANG
Metricstream Infotech India Pvt Ltd Vs CCT
ST - The appellant filed the refund claim of Rs. 43,91,346/- under Notification No. 05/2006, same was partially rejected only on the ground of time-bar - The original authority took more than 4 years to decide the refund claim of appellant and in the meantime GST Law has come into force - On appeal, the Commissioner (Appeals) has remanded the matter to original authority - Consequent to remand order, the original authority rejected the refund claim on the ground that the appellant has not debited the refund amount and rejected the refund on the ground that credit was transferred to GST regime through TRAN-1 - Commissioner (Appeals) also rejected the appeal on the same ground - The impugned order is not sustainable in law - Matter remanded to the original authority with a direction that TRAN-1 credit taken by appellant be directed to be reversed and thereafter the original authority will consider the directions given in O-I-A: CESTAT
- Matter remanded: BANGALORE CESTAT |
