2021-TIOL-1517-HC-MAD-CUS

Global Metro Vs CC

Cus - Writ Petition challenges communication dated 25.05.2021, which has been issued by R4/Deputy Commissioner of Customs conveying the decision of the Chief Commissioner of Customs rejecting the petitioner's request for provisional release of consignments of import of black pepper that have been seized - Petitioner also seeks a direction to the respondents to release the goods provisionally in terms of Section 110A of the Customs Act 1962 and issue Demurrage-cum-Detention Waiver Certificate for waiver of Demurrage and Container Detention Charges, in respect of the said goods in terms of Section 6(1)(l) of Handling of Cargo in Customs Areas Regulations 2009 read with Regulation 10(1)(l) of Sea Cargo Manifest and Transhipment Regulations, 2018 - The crux of the litigation turns upon the valuation of the consignments in question, as Notification No.21/2015-20 dated 25.07.2018 permits entry of black pepper falling under Entry No.0904 11 30 only if the CIF value of the import was Rs.500/- per kg or above - Imports of value less than Rs.500/- per kg is prohibited - It is the apprehension of the DRI that the goods have been overvalued by the petitioner in order to render them freely importable, the word 'free' being used in the context of 'permitted to be imported', as the commodities are otherwise subject to duty at the rate of 8%.

Held : The commodity in question is agricultural produce - The variety of black pepper imported is stated to be specific to the region of Sri Lanka, an important ingredient in the making of spices used in Indian cuisine, with a short shelf life - Assuming for the sake of argument that investigation is concluded in favour of the petitioner, if the provisional release is not granted, the entire consignments would have been compromised - The balance of convenience would thus require that the consignments be released, subject to the petitioner being put to terms - This would also ensure that the interests of the Department are securely protected - The petitioner will remit the entire duty and furnish bond to the satisfaction of the Assessing Authority in regard to interest payable, penalty or charges that may be deemed necessary - The impugned order/communication is set aside - Insofar as the issue of waiver of demurrage charges is concerned, the issue is left open to be pursued before the authorities - Petition disposed of: High Court [para 13 to 15]

- Petition disposed of: MADRAS HIGH COURT

2021-TIOL-1516-HC-MAD-CX

Akshaya Aqua Farms Vs Disegnated Committee

CX - Petitioner challenges order passed by the first respondent, the Designated Committee rejecting its application under the SVLDRS, 2019 - Order is a one liner, which simply says 'Dear Taxpayer, your SVLDRS Form for the ARN No xxx has been rejected' - No reasons have been set out as to why the petitioner's application is found to be unsuitable for the purpose of the Scheme - Defence taken by respondent Revenue is that investigation in the matter is still on-going and that the duty component has not been quantified.

Held: In this case, a statement of the petitioner has been recorded at the time of investigation on 02.05.2017 indicating the duty amount payable - The doubt that arises from the quantification in the statement is as to whether the amount is a sum of Rs.98.00 lakhs or Rs.75.00 lakhs and this would hinge upon the status of the petitioner as SSI unit or otherwise - For the limited purpose of determining the status of the petitioner, Bench sets aside the impugned order and remands the matter to the file of R1, who shall complete the exercise by determining this aspect of the matter alone - Had the respondent afforded proper opportunity as required in terms of Section 127 of the Scheme, heard the petitioner and passed a speaking order, this litigation might well have been avoided altogether - Let the above procedure be followed and an order passed in terms thereof within a period of six (6) weeks - Petition disposed of: High Court [para 5, 6, 8]

- Petition disposed of: MADRAS HIGH COURT

2021-TIOL-403-CESTAT-DEL

Hindustan Zinc Ltd Vs CCGST

CX - The dispute is with regard to disallowance of cenvat credit taken on some input services, which in the opinion of Revenue appear to be not allowable in terms of definition of input service as given in Rule 2(l) of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 - As regards to the amount of Rs. 4,29,051/- is concerned, the invoices are not related to 'Commercial Construction Service' rather they are for input services received in the course of day-to-day running of plant, operation and maintenance of STP plant, drain cleaning and scrap collection work, putting up of safety signage in the plant area and also for earth work and excavation work at the 'wet gas plant' - These services are allowable as input services as no production can happen without carrying out the essential operation in the plant or factory of appellant of dutiable finished products - So far as the dispute before Tribunal is concerned, the last voucher is dated 11.01.2012 and therefore SCN dated 30.03.2015 is also bad on the ground of limitation - Accordingly, appeal is allowed both on merits and also on the ground of limitation - The penalty imposed is also set aside.

As regards to amount of Rs. 8,52,920/-, the invoices are of April to August, 2012 relating to raising of height of 'jerosite pond' and repair and maintenance of the factory - The appellant points out that 'jerosite pond' is essential for carrying out manufacturing of dutiable final products - Secondly, repair and maintenance is a continuous process in this type of industry where the raw mineral is processed, and the process is called 'beneficiation' for obtaining enriched ore for further processing - Accordingly, SCN is misconceived as these services are not classifiable as commercial construction service, being in the nature of repair and maintenance in the course of day to day business of the appellant - The last invoice is issued on 21.08.2012 whereas the SCN has been issued after more than twelve months on 14.12.2015 - Thus, the demand is also barred by limitation - The appellant is entitled to cenvat credit: CESTAT

- Appeals allowed: DELHI CESTAT