2021-TIOL-1827-HC-MAD-CUS
GE India Industrial Pvt Ltd Vs UoI
Cus - Relief sought for in the present Writ Petition is to forbear the respondents, their servants, agents and subordinates from carrying out any assessment in contravention with advance Ruling.
Held: By referring to the Advance Ruling and the Circulars issued by the Department / CBEC, an order was passed on 03.02.2014 and challenging the said order passed, another writ petition in W.P.No . 4156 of 2014 was filed - The writ petitioner has challenged both the Circular as well as the orders passed by the respondents and, therefore, the relief as such sought for in W.P.No . 4155 of 2014 cannot be considered - Writ Petition in W.P.No . 4155 of 2014 stands disposed of: High Court [para 3]
- Petition disposed of: MADRAS HIGH COURT
2021-TIOL-1826-HC-MAD-CUS
GE India Industrial Pvt Ltd Vs UoI
Cus - Petitioner submits that the matter requires consideration with reference to Advance Ruling Notification and the judgments in this regard are also to be considered by this Court - In view of the said submission, the orders passed by this Court on 19.08.2021 [ 2021-TIOL-1825-HC-CUS-MAD ] stands recalled: High Court
- Order recalled: MADRAS HIGH COURT
2021-TIOL-1825-HC-MAD-CUS
GE India Industrial Pvt Ltd Vs UoI
Cus - Writ petitioner has chosen to file the present Writ Petition merely on the ground that the authorities are attempting to pass an assessment in contravention with the advance ruling dated 27.05.2013 - The relief cannot be granted in anticipation in such circumstances - Based on such apprehension, no writ needs to be entertained in a routine manner - relief as sought for cannot be granted and the petitioner is at liberty to defend their case before the Competent Authority - Petition dismissed: High Court [para 3, 4]
- Petition dismissed: MADRAS HIGH COURT
2021-TIOL-1824-HC-MAD-CUS
Raj Petro Specialities Pvt Ltd Vs Addl. Director General
Cus - Grounds raised in the Writ Petition would reveal that they are mostly relatable to the disputed facts and legal grounds - Mixed question of law and fact is to be decided by the Competent Authority by adjudicating the grounds raised by the petitioner and High Court cannot adjudicate such disputed facts and circumstances elaborately in a writ proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution of India - No writ is entertainable against the show-cause notice in a routine manner - In view of the fact that the petitioner has already deposited the entire demand of Customs of Duty, the case is to be adjudicated on merits and in accordance with law - Petitions disposed of: High Court [para 4, 5]
- Petitions disposed of: MADRAS HIGH COURT
2021-TIOL-1823-HC-MAD-CUS
Sammarth Overseas And Credits Pvt Ltd Vs UoI
Cus - Notification 102/2007-Cus - Refund - During the pendency of the writ petition, developments occurred and the High Court of Madras has already passed an order in the case of PNP Polytex Private Limited Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Customs (Refunds), Chennai, = 2018-TIOL-723-HC-MAD-CUS - In view of the developments, the issues are to be reconsidered by the 4th respondent / original authority - Matter remitted back to the 4th respondent for fresh consideration and pass order as expeditiously as possible - Writ petition stands disposed of: High Court [para 3, 4]
- Petition disposed of: MADRAS HIGH COURT
2021-TIOL-1814-HC-AHM-CUS Savitha Nisar Vs UoI
Cus - The grievance of petitioner is that the vehicle was seized and despite repeated requests to release the said vehicle provisionally, these requests have fallen on deaf ears for the last almost two years - The affidavit-in-reply filed by respondent clearly states that the petitioner has an efficacious remedy of getting impugned vehicle provisionally released by making an application to adjudicating authority - The respondent is directed to consider and decide the application for provisional release which may be moved by petitioner along with a certified copy of this order within a period of four weeks: HC
- Petition disposed of: GUJARAT HIGH COURT
2021-TIOL-558-CESTAT-AHM
Gujarat Alkalies and Chemicals Ltd Vs CCE & ST
CX - The issue involved is that whether the appellant is liable to penalty of Rs. 20,563/- under Section 11AC of Central Excise Act, 1944 which was imposed for wrong availment of credit on the contribution of employee recovered by appellant against the service of rent a cab operator service - Under section 11AC ibid, penalty can be imposed only when the demand is confirmed invoking proviso to section 11A(1) ibid - Though the demand was confirmed invoking proviso to section 11A(1) ibid and the appellant has not contested the said demand and they have paid the same along with interest - However, they are contesting the imposition of penalty on the ground that there is no ingredients existing as to the facts of this case whereby the proviso to section 11A(1) ibid can be invoked - He submits that the credit of Rs. 20,563/- was denied for the reason that it is attributable to the contribution of input service i.e. rent a cab service - This issue has been decided by Bombay High Court in case of Ultratech 2010-TIOL-745-HC-MUM-ST , before that there was no clarity - It is a settled law that when there is a doubt and difference of views on issue and subsequently it is settled by any court of law, the suppression or intention to evade the duty cannot be alleged in such cases - Even though the extended period was not invocable, appellant have paid the said amount along with interest, which is not under contest - Since there is no suppression of fact or misdeclaration, fraud or intent to evade duty on the part of the appellant, the penalty under section 11AC ibid cannot be invoked: CESTAT
- Appeal allowed: AHMEDABAD CESTAT
2021-TIOL-557-CESTAT-MAD
Caress Industries Vs CGST & CE
CX - The issue is with regard to classification of goods, i.e., Chelated Zinc at 12% EDTA, Chelated Iron as 12% Fe EDTA and MNM Chelated - The department has sought classification of impugned goods under Chapter Heading 3808 of CETA, 1985 while the appellant have classified the said goods under Chapter Heading 3015 as other 'Fertilizers' and claimed nil rate of duty vide Notification No. 4/2006-C.E. - Identical issue was analyzed in appellant's own case for a different period wherein the Tribunal had upheld the classification adopted by appellant - No reason found to deviate from the said decision for demand raised in these appeals for a different period - The impugned orders are set aside: CESTAT
- Appeals allowed: CHENNAI CESTAT
2021-TIOL-556-CESTAT-MAD
Lindstrom Services India Pvt Ltd Vs Pr. CGST & CE
ST - The appellant is engaged in supply of workwear on rent/lease basis as per the requirement of each customer - The activity rendered by them includes renting/leasing of workwear, maintenance, repairing, alteration, designing of workwear, providing lockers and transportation of workwear - Department was of the view that the activity amounts to service in nature of supply of tangible goods and that appellants are liable to pay service tax on services rendered by them - The issue as to whether the activity of renting of workwear is a service or deemed sale has been analyzed by Tribunal in appellant's own case for a different period - The Tribunal in said order followed the decision rendered by Chandigarh Bench of Tribunal in appellant's own case - It is also noted in said order that Commissioner (Appeals) has also held that renting of workwear does not amount to supply of tangible goods/services to attract levy of service tax - Following the said decisions, it is held that the demand raised cannot sustain and same is set aside: CESTAT
- Appeal allowed: CHENNAI CESTAT |
