2021-TIOL-2245-HC-KERALA-CX
Kerala Electrical And Allied Engineering Company Ltd Vs CCE, C & ST
CX - The dispute relates to rejection of claim of appellant for refund - The arguments now put forward by appellant are substantially same and similar to the contentions canvassed by appellant before Tribunal - In present appeal, court is not only concerned with substantial questions raised but also the findings recorded by Tribunal while dismissing the appeal filed by appellant - The claim for refund is made beyond one year from the date of payment of duty by appellant as stipulated by Explanation (f) - Explanation (eb) is not attracted to the facts and circumstances of this case - On the point of limitation the submissions are made, the claim of refund of appellant is rejected for valid and available grounds - The questions are answered against the appellant and in favour of respondent: HC
- Appeal dismissed: KERALA HIGH COURT
2021-TIOL-2242-HC-DEL-NDPS
Sachin Makade Vs Narcotics Control Bureau
NDPS - Recovery of 4200 tablets of Zolpidam (1.050kg); 6000 tablets of Alprazolam (1.200kg) from parcel destined to Great Britain, lying at TNT India Private Limited ( Fedex Courier) near Custom House, IGI Airport - Consignor Dipu Singh was apprehended and further recovery of 12000 tablets of Tramadol (4.800kg) was effected from his residence at Lucknow, UP and seized on 01.02.2020 - Consequent upon the recovery from the parcel and from the residence of Dipu Singh and based upon his voluntary statement under Section 67 of the NDPS he was arrested on 02.02.2020 - He disclosed the names of Tejas patel , Sachin Makade /petitioner herein, Barun Chauahn , and Bablu Bhagwan Dangre /petitioner, all of them tendered their statements under Section 67 of the NDPS and their association in the commission of crime - Petitioners aforesaid seek bail.
Held: The facts stated in the charge sheet do show prima facie the petitioners were dealing with narcotics and psychotropic substances on a large scale - Petitioner Bablu Bhagwan Dangre allegedly had a company under the name of Krivi Infotech which used to deal with narcotic tablets and a bank account in HDFC Bank, Nagpur and all the payments were received in this account - It is alleged that all the orders of Tramadol tablets were received from India or other countries through mail or on phone were forwarded by Barun Chauhan for confirmation and thereafter to Mr.Lutz at Singapore through mail - Petitioner Bablu Bhagwan Dangre disclosed the mail ID and petitioner Sachin Makade used to operate his laptop and had given the printout of mails in connection with orders of Tramadol tablets during the custody period with NCB - Admittedly, the incriminating material has been seized from the mobiles, laptops of petitioners categorically demonstrate trafficking/ transportation/shipping/ external dealings in Tramadol and other psychotropic substances/drugs from India to UK and Singapore etc and petitioners are involved in external trading - Simpliciter statement under Section 67 of the NDPS Act may not be admissible under Section 25 of the Indian Evidence Act, however, the disclosure leading to discovery of facts within their knowledge that they were indulging in trade of narcotics, including Tramadol tablets in conspiracy with other accused persons coupled with other incriminating material seized on record is relevant in terms of Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act - No ground is made out to release the petitioners on bail at this stage - Applications dismissed: High Court [para 10 to 12, 16]
- Applications dismissed: DELHI HIGH COURT
2021-TIOL-774-CESTAT-KOL
Trading Syndicate Vs CC
Cus - The proceedings were initiated against appellant on the allegation that the goods imported by them had been undervalued - It is on record that the bills of entry were assessed by Proper Officer and the assessable value was determined by them and it was not challenged either by appellant or by the departmen - In course of enquiry, a proforma invoice was recovered showing a different price from that as shown in invoice submitted at the time of import - However, proforma invoice is not issued in the name of appellant - Otherwise also the price quoted in a proforma invoice cannot be held as actual price since the price of goods are settled after negotiation between the two parties - Revenue has not produced any document to prove that there was any extra payment made by appellant towards purchase of said goods - Judgment of Apex Court in matter of Vikara International supports him - The confiscation of goods and imposition of penalty are consequential to alleged under-valuation of imported goods by appellant - Since the sufficient grounds not found as required for enhancement of assessable value, imposition of redemption fine in lieu of confiscation under section 125 of Customs Act, 1962 and imposition of penalty under section 114A on M/s. Trading Syndicate and under section 114AA on Shri Mohinder Goel, proprietor of M/s.Trading Syndicate is not sustainable: CESTAT
- Appeal allowed: KOLKATA CESTAT 2021-TIOL-773-CESTAT-MUM
Hindustan Construction Company Ltd Vs CST
ST - Appellant is engaged in Engineering and Construction of infrastructure development projects - During audit, it was observed that appellant had recovered amounts from their related parties for reimbursement expenses and revenue expenses incurred on their behalf by way of raising periodical debit notes but had not discharged applicable service tax liability thereon - Revenue views that these reimbursable expenses were to be included in gross value for determination of value of taxable service - Accordingly a SCN was issued to the appellant - The issue involved in the matter is for period prior to 2015 in respect of inclusion of reimbursable expenses in the Gross Value of services provided - The issue has been settled by decision of Apex Court in case of Intercontinental Consultants and Technocrats 2018-TIOL-76-SC-ST , holding that prior to amendments made in Section 68 in 2015, Rule 5 of Service Tax Rules was not in consonance with the section - Addition of reimbursable expenses to determine taxable value of service provided cannot be justified - No merits found in impugned order: CESTAT
- Appeal allowed: MUMBAI CESTAT
2021-TIOL-772-CESTAT-MUM
Cipy Polyurethanes Pvt Ltd Vs CCE
CX - A fire accident occurred at the manufacturing unit of appellant - They claimed remission of duty under Rule 21 of CER, 2002 - It is stated that they had not claimed Central Excise duty amount in their insurance claim - In respect of demand made for duty in respect of finished goods destroyed in fire, there is no dispute between appellants and revenue on the findings recorded by Commissioner - So the issue arises is in respect of inputs and packing materials destroyed in fire - It is settle principle of interpretation, that interpretation should be made without adding or deleting the words used in Rules - What is to be remitted is the duty required to be paid by manufacturer on the goods he intends to remove from his premises - When the amount required to be paid in terms of Rule 3 (5) has been deemed to be the duty paid by manufacturer removing the inputs as such, then claim made by such manufacturer in terms of Rule 21 for remission of these amounts cannot be brushed aside if the Commissioner is satisfied that these goods have been lost or destroyed by natural causes or by unavoidable accident or are claimed by manufacturer as unfit for consumption or for marketing, at any time before removal - Similar view has been expressed by Delhi bench in case of Techtextil 2017-TIOL-789-CESTAT-DEL - The decision of Apex Court in the case of BPL Display Devices Ltd 2004-TIOL-121-SC-CUS clearly lays down that once the goods are procured for an intended use, then the benefit available and availed by them should not be denied just because for some reason they were not used so - All the inputs, packing materials whether in process of manufacture or intended to be used in the process of manufacture of finished goods which were destroyed in fire accident and could not be used so are covered by decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court, Tribunal do not agree with findings recorded by Commissioner demanding reversal of CENVAT Credit by invoking provisions of Rule 3 (5B) of CCR, 2004 - The demand of interest and penalties is set aside: CESTAT
- Appeal allowed: MUMBAI CESTAT |
