|
2022-TIOL-73-HC-DEL-NDPS
Tinimo Efere Wowo Vs State of Govt of NCT of Delhi
NDPS - In the relevant period, the police received an intelligence input of one person who would be coming to New Delhi to supply Pseudo Ephedrine to another person there - A raid was conducted and a person was apprehended and from him 10 Kg of Pseudo Ephedrine was recovered - Based on this recovery, an FIR ewas registered - During investigation, the person arrested was interrogated whereupon he admitted to having procured the recovered substance from a person based out of Punjab - The arrested person was taken to Punjab to apprehend the supplier of the recovered Pseudo Ephedrine - The supplier was lured to a location and was apprehended - A cursory search of the supplier revealed nothing incriminating in nature but he confessed to having delivered the illicit substance to the first person apprehended - He was was arrested in the present case and intimation regarding his arrest was conveyed to local police station - He was interrogated there but he did not co-operate and did not disclose as to from where he has procured the recovered pseudo-ephedrine - Susequently this person named many other people, including the applicant herein, as having supplied the Pseudo Ephedrine - The applicant was apprehended at the instance of the other accused persons and search of the applicant's person revealed 3.5 Kg of Pseudo Ephedrine and 15 Gms of Cocaine - The applicant was arrested and his passport and Visa were got verified from the External Affairs Ministry and it was found that Visa sticker on the passport of the petitioner was fake - Hence provisions of Section 471 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 14 of the Foreigners Act were invoked too - Hence the present bail application was filed.
Held - Foreign nationals arrested under the NDPS Act can be released on bail where the circumstances so permit - As it stands, the bail applicant was caught with 15 Gms of Cocaine which is not commercial quantity - Besides, the applicant has been in custody for too long and the protracted trial is likely to take long to conclude - Moreover, the applicant is married to an Indian lady and has children - The factum of the marriage and the children is established by the State and by relatives of the applicant's spouse - Hence bail allowed conditional on furnishing of personal bond: HC
- Bail application allowed: DELHI HIGH COURT
2022-TIOL-71-CESTAT-MUM
Mira Bhaindar Municipal Corporation Vs CCGST & CE
ST - From the two impugned orders which are in respect of the demand made in terms of Section 73 of Finance Act, 1994 and under Section 73A ibid, it is found that the adjudicating Commissioners have adopted different approach in respect of major demands made in respect of Pay and Park Fees, Bazar auction/Bazar fees and Rusta Nuksan Bharpai (ROW) - It is evident that revenue has not challenged the order dated 25.02.2020 of Commissioner giving relief to appellants in respect of demands made on this account - Hence, for the past period also, similar relief may be admissible, but to permit an opportunity to revenue to re-examine these demands for past period in similar manner, demands confirmed by the order dated 23.01.2018 in respect of these heads are set aside and matter is remanded to adjudicating authority - In respect of demands made under head Mandap/ Marriage hall and Blood bank rent, submissions made by appellant in respect of these services rendered by them is that they being Municipal Corporation have rendered these as mandated in terms of Article 243W of Constitution of India, read with Schedule 12 and hence fall in category of exempted services - Just because the services under consideration have been provided Municipal Authority, same cannot be said to be a service covered under Article 243 read with Schedule 12 of Constitution of India - Hence, the arguments advanced by appellant to that effect cannot be sustained, more so over when they themselves have admitted there liability to pay service tax in respect of services under category of BOT, Mandap & Renting of Space to Blood Bank - Tribunal agrees with submissions of appellant to effect that the value of taxable services under these category needs to be redetermined after taking into account the relevant and admissible deductions.
In respect of services under category of Renting of Stall, it is the submission of appellant that the amount collected by them is fees for providing small space to street hawkers for selling their goods and is part of their Constitutional Duty for upliftment and social welfare of poor - To the extent, space is provided to the poor for purpose of street vending and street hawking, Tribunal would agree with submission made by appellant, but the same cannot be true in case of shops and stalls rented out - Matter needs to be reconsidered by original authority and suitable determination made - The finding recorded by Commissioner in second order is vis a vis penalty to be imposed - Commissioner has found the justification that being statutory authority cannot be subjected to penalty - Without stating Section 80 of Finance Act, 1994 he for these reasons has refrained from imposing penalties on appellant - However, extending benefit under Section 80 cannot be cited as reason for not invoking extended period of limitation under Section 73 ibid - From what has been stated above, Tribunal agrees with the approach adopted by Commissioner in order dated 23.01.2018, justifying invocation of extended period - Since the issue is quite old, adjudicating authority should finalized the matter in remand proceedings within three months: CESTAT
- Appeals partly allowed: MUMBAI CESTAT
2022-TIOL-70-CESTAT-MAD
Professional Courier Vs CCE & ST
ST - The Commissioner (Appeals), in impugned communication has rejected the appeal of assessee on the ground that the VCES did not have provision for a statutory appeal against order of rejection of declaration under Section 106(2) of Finance Act, 1962 by Designated Authority - The High Court of Judicature at Madras in case of M/s. Narasimha Mills Pvt. Ltd. 2015-TIOL-1504-HC-MAD-ST , has clearly held that an order of rejection of benefit under impugned scheme is appealable under Section 85 of Finance Act, 1994 - In view of said clear ruling, impugned order cannot sustain and therefore, same is set aside - Commissioner (Appeals) is directed to take up the appeal preferred by assessee and dispose of the same on merits and in accordance with law: CESTAT
- Matter remanded: CHENNAI CESTAT
2022-TIOL-69-CESTAT-DEL
Batra Henlay Cables Vs CGST & CE
CX - The issue involved is, whether the appellant is entitled to interest on the amount deposited by it during investigation, consequent to dropping of entire demand - In similar facts and circumstances, Division Bench of Tribunal in Parle Agro (P) Ltd. 2021-TIOL-306-CESTAT-ALL following the ruling of Apex Court in Sandvik Asia Ltd. 2006-TIOL-07-SC-IT has been pleased to grant interest @ 12% p.a. from the date of deposit till the date of grant of refund with reference to Section 35FF of Central Excise Act, 1944 - The Court below is directed to disburse the interest on refund @ 12% p.a. from the date of deposit till the date of refund within a period of 45 days: CESTAT
- Appeal allowed: DELHI CESTAT
2022-TIOL-68-CESTAT-CHD
NK Impex India Vs CC
Cus - The appellants are in appeal on the ground that goods in question have been seized and absolutely confiscated which are perishable in nature - Admittedly, the goods were not allowed to be released provisionally - The time-limit prescribed under Section 110(2) of the Act shall apply to the facts of the case - Therefore, SCN was required to be issued within six months from the date of seizure, further no time limit has been extended by recording the reasons in writing as the proviso to Section 110(2) of Customs Act, 1962 - The time limit for issuance of SCN of six months falls on 01.01.2021, therefore, provisions relied upon by Revenue of Section 6 of Taxation & Other Laws Act, 2020 r/w Notification No. 450/61/2020-Cus.IV (Part 1), dated 30.09.2020 are of no help - Further, in SCN, it has been mentioned that the SCN was required to be issued on 17.03.2021 under Section 110(2) of Customs Act, 1962 which has been extended by letter that the same has been extended up to 30.06.2021 which is against the law as six months period was expired on 01.01.2021 of seizure and within six months till 01.01.2021, Revenue was required to pass an order recording reasons in writing for extension of time - No such order is placed on record - SCN issued to appellant is barred by limitation, therefore, SCN for absolute confiscation is not sustainable - Accordingly, goods are required to be released to appellant after examination thereof to find out whether same are fit for human consumption or not and the demurrage and detention charges are required to be waived.
As regards to another appeal, goods have been seized on 19.05.2020 and SCN has been issued on 30.06.2021 - The observations made in first appeal with regard to time limit to issue SCN under Section 110(2) of the Act, it is held that the SCN has been issued to appellant beyond the time limit prescribed under Section 110(2) of the Act on 30.06.2021 whereas the goods have been seized on 19.05.2020 and no order recording reasons in writing has been passed for extension of time, therefore, SCN issued to appellant for absolute confiscation of goods is not sustainable - Accordingly, Revenue is directed to release the goods to appellant after examining the same whether same are fit for human consumption or not and the demurrage and detention charges are required to be waived: CESTAT
- Appeals disposed of: CHANDIGARH CESTAT |
|
