|
2021-TIOL-1880-HC-ALL-CX
Magma Industries Ltd Vs Designated Committee Office of CCGST
CX - Petitioner raises challenge to the order passed by the Designated Committee rejecting the declaration filed by the petitioner under the SVLDRS scheme seeking settlement of dispute - Petitioner had in their declaration SVLDRS-1 filed on 13.01.2020 disclosed the amount of disputed duty payable under the Act at Rs.47,56,751/- and the Estimate Amount Payable (EAP) Rs.14,27,025.30 - The disputed duty payable/'tax dues' disclosed was the sum of the alleged short-paid duty as per the 'Panchnama' document dated 10.02.2016 and the evaded duty as per the statement of Dinesh Garg dated 13.05.2016 - Designated Committee rejected the petitioner's declaration by the impugned order dated 05.05.2020 by observing that the tax liability was finally quantified in Show Cause Notice dated 06.09.2019 for demand of Central Excise duty amounting to Rs.47,56,751/- and to appropriate an amount of Rs. 2,18,516/- already deposited by the party; that no such communication of final Tax liability was made by the department in the instant case on or before 30.06.2019.
Held: Under Section 125(1)(e) of the Scheme, in the case of a person who may have been subjected to an enquiry or investigation, if the amount of duty involved in that investigation had not been 'quantified' on or before 30.06.2019, such person would be ineligible to make a declaration - There is no doubt that the 'Panchnama' document dated 10.02.2016 prepared by the Central Excise authorities, in writing, clearly mentioned the amount Rs.2,18,516/- as the amount of duty short paid by the petitioner - Again, there can be no doubt that a director of the petitioner-company Dinesh Garg, in his statement recorded, in writing, on 13.05.2016 further admitted duty avoidance by the petitioner, to the tune of Rs.45,38,231/- and thus the total of these two admissions is Rs.47,56,751/- - Section 121(r) does not, in any manner suggest and it, therefore, does not seek to limit the meaning of the phrase 'written communication' to be one written and issued by any Central Excise authority - Plainly, it refers to an amount of duty under any indirect tax enactment, reduced to writing - Once the amount of Rs.45,38,231/- was thus reduced to writing before the Central Excise authority in an “enquiry or investigation” as defined under Section 121(m) of the Scheme and the petitioner did not dispute the same, the requirement of Section 121(r) read with Section 125(1)(e) read with 123(c) stood fulfilled - Thus, the Circular 1071/4/2019-CX.8 , dated 27.8.2019 would bind the revenue authorities ranked lower to the CBIC, insofar as it is beneficial to the petitioner - Those revenue authorities, subordinate to the CBIC, cannot resist or protest or deviate from the interpretation of the Scheme made by the CBIC - To allow them to do so, would be to render the mandate of Section 133 of the Scheme, redundant - Once the CBIC clarified and thus enlarged the meaning of the word 'quantified' to give effect to the purpose of Section 123(c) read with Section 125(1)(e) and Section 121(1)(r) of the Scheme clearly to extend the benefit of the Scheme to more persons, there is neither any wisdom nor legal basis to curtail the same, contrary to the express intent of the CBIC - Bench, therefore, unhesitatingly reaches the following conclusions - (i) the 'tax dues' of the petitioner stood 'quantified' for the purpose of Section 121(r), 123(c), 124(1)(d) and 125(1)(d) before the cut-off date 30.06.2019 at Rs.45,38,231/- and (ii) even if it may have been otherwise permissible to interpret those provisions in a manner that in the case of a pending enquiry, investigation or audit, no declaration may be filed unless the revenue authority had first communicated in writing the 'quantified' amount of 'tax dues'/duty demand proposed under the Act, yet, that interpretation would stand blocked, at the instance of the revenue authorities, by virtue of the binding interpretation of the law offered by the CBIC, under section 133 of the Scheme - SVLDRS Scheme is a piece of reform legislation and it commends a purposive construction - No good ground to form any different opinion in this regard as the object of the Scheme is only to resolve all legacy disputes and focus all energies of the revenue authorities as also the assessees at the (then) imminent enforcement of the new GST regime - Reasoning given by the Designated Committee in the impugned order runs contrary to law - No discretion was vested in the Designated Committee to take a different view - Impugned order dated 05.05.2020 is set aside and matter is remitted to the Designated Committee to issue the necessary SVLDRS-3 within a period of thirty days - Petition is allowed: High Court [para 7, 11, 16, 17, 21, 22, 23]
- Petition allowed: ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
2021-TIOL-600-CESTAT-MAD
CC Vs SP Associates
Cus - The respondents had filed various Bills of Entry to import used Digital Multi-Functional Printers/Devices (MFDs) of various makes and models with standard accessories and attachments classifying them under Tariff Item 8443 31 00 of Customs Tariff Act, 1975 - They were examined on first check in the presence of Chartered Engineer who submitted his report and also appraised the value of goods - SCNs were issued to importers for violation of provisions of FTP, Hazardous Waste Rules, E-Waste Rules and Bureau of Indian Standards Act, 1986, proposing confiscation of goods under Sections 111(d) and 111(m) of the Customs Act, 1962 and proposing imposition of penalty upon respondents under Section 112(a) and Section 117 of Customs Act, 1962 - The case pertains to CRO, 2012 which was issued under BIS Act, 1986 and BIS Rules 1987 neither of which had any provision to regulate imports - Clause (3) of CRO, 2012 therefore went beyond the scope of the Act and Rules and imposed controls over imports as well - Electronics & Information Technology Goods (Requirement for Compulsory Registration) Order, 2012 has gone beyond the Act and Rules in imposing a restriction from imports - Even these restrictions were confined only to printers and plotters - Multi-Functional Devices were not covered under this order - The letters and circulars of Ministry of Electronics & Information Technology (MeitY) cannot take the place of law and therefore the goods were not prohibited for import - Valuation of the goods by Customs is not disputed - Consequently, the confiscation of goods or misdeclaration under Section 111(m) also need not be interfered with - The impugned goods are useful second hand goods with residual life and are not hazardous waste and hence are correctly allowed redemption for home consumption - So far as the Foreign Trade Policy is concerned, it is true that import of Second Hand MFDs were restricted and required an authorization which the respondents did not have - Therefore, confiscation of goods under Section 111(d) is valid - Having confiscated, the goods can be allowed for redemption under Section 125 of Customs Act, 1962 - There is no bar on allowing redemption in any case - The penalty imposed under Section 117 is correctly set aside as there is no Act or omission rendered by the importer under Section 49 which may have violated - There is no dispute regarding reduction of penalty under Section 112(a) by Commissioner (Appeals) which is fair and reasonable - As far as the request of respondents to waive demurrages is concerned, there is no appeal against the impugned order by respondents and therefore no relief can be considered or granted - All impugned orders are upheld and the appeals filed by the Revenue are rejected - The impugned goods, if not released already by the Customs, must be cleared for home consumption within 10 days, if the respondents pay the duty and other dues as per the impugned orders: CESTAT
- Appeals rejected: CHENNAI CESTAT
2021-TIOL-599-CESTAT-AHM
Ransformers And Rectifiers India Ltd Vs CCE
CX - The dispute essentially relates to includibility in assessable value of freight collected in excess to the actual amount spent - The price of transportation contracted is not always in excess of actual amount spent on transportation - Sometimes it is less and other times it is more - However, the demand has been raised by selecting entries where the amount collected is higher than the actual amount spent - A perusal of contracts shows that it contains separate clauses for cost of goods sold and the cost of transportation - The representative contract produced by them in respect of Rajasthan Rajya Vidyut Prasaran Nigam Limited thereof contains details of various tests to be conducted by buyer - The tests include Stage Inspection, Routine Tests, Type Tests, Test for Nitrogen Inspection, Fire Prevention and Extinguishing System - The dispatch of goods is also subject to approval of buyer after testing - The dispatch instruction prescribes the manner in which the dispatch clearance will be granted by buyer - Relying on the Apex Court's decision in Accurate Meters Limited 2009-TIOL-31-SC-CX-LB , the impugned order is set aside: CESTAT
- Appeals allowed: AHMEDABAD CESTAT
2021-TIOL-598-CESTAT-AHM
Radhika Exports Vs CCE & ST
ST - The issue involved is that whether the appellant is entitled for refund of inland haulage Charges which according to the department was used beyond the place of removal for expert of goods under Notification No. 41/2012-S.T. - The issue is no longer res integra as the identical issue has been considered by Tribunal in case of JAIN IRRIGATION SYSTEMS LTD 2015-TIOL-2609-CESTAT-MUM which has relied upon Tribunal's judgment in Polyplex Corporation Ltd 2015-TIOL-2997-CESTAT-DEL wherein the tribunal has taken a view that since, the inland haulage Charges has been paid by the exporter, they are entitled for the refund of Service Tax paid on such inland haulage Charges - Therefore, following the said judgment, appellant is entitled for refund: CESTAT
- Appeal allowed: AHMEDABAD CESTAT |
|
