2022-TIOL-137-HC-AHM-CUS
Qrex Flex Pvt Ltd Vs UoI
Cus - The issue relates to imposition of Anti-dumping duty on imports of "PVC Flex Films" - It appears that the subject goods originates and is being imported from China in huge quantity and is being dumped in India - The Designated Authority has recommended that Anti-dumping duty on subject goods should be withdrawn - The applicants are aggrieved by such recommendation on the part of Designated Authority to the Union - Being dissatisfied with conclusion and recommendation, applicants preferred an appeal before Appellate Tribunal - As the Bench is not available, Tribunal is not in a position to take up the matters for hearing more particularly, applications seeking interim relief - In meantime, a further development seems to have taken place in form of Notfn 3/2022/Custom- (ADD) - With this Notfn everything comes to an end - Now, there would not be any levy of Antidumping duty - It is in such circumstances that the applicants had to file a draft amendment which has been allowed - Since an appeal has already been filed before Tribunal, it will be in fitness of things if Tribunal hears the appeal and decides the same on its own merits in accordance with law - However, till the time the Tribunal decides, court may stay the operation of Notfn 3/2022/Custom-(ADD) for a period of six weeks and also extend the operation of Notfn dated 08.08.2016 for a period of six weeks - During this period of four weeks, Tribunal should take up the appeals and decide them on their own merits in accordance with law - There is no problem in keeping this matter day after tomorrow but, the Notfn dated 24.01.2022 shall remain stayed from its operation till day after tomorrow: HC
- Matter listed: GUJARAT HIGH COURT
2022-TIOL-136-HC-AHM-GST
Barmecha Texfab Pvt Ltd Vs Commissioner Govt. of Gujarat
GST - Petitioner has prayed for a direction to the respondent no.3 to unblock the Electronic Credit Ledger, more particularly, when the period of one year as prescribed under sub-rule 3 of Rule 86A of the CGST/GGST Rules has elapsed from the date of order of blocking of the Electronic Credit Ledger.
Held: Counsel for Revenue has fairly stated that the period of one year has elapsed in terms of sub-rule 3 of rule 86A of the Rules, 2017 - The rule itself has provided that the Electronic Credit Ledger can be blocked for a period of one year and on expiry of a period of one year, it would automatically get unblocked - In fact, it was the duty of the authority concerned to permit the assessee, i.e. the writ-applicant, to avail the input credit available in his ledger - Once the statutory period comes to an end, the authority has no further discretion in the matter, unless a fresh order is passed - In the case on hand, it is very unfortunate to note that despite the fact that the period of one year elapsed, the authority did not permit the writ-applicant to avail the credit available in his ledger - Even representation was filed in this regard but the authority thought fit not to pay heed to such representation - Bench observes that the authority did not permit the writ-applicant to avail the input credit available in his ledger for about more than two and a half months after the statutory life of the order came to an end - Bench, therefore, makes it clear that next time if it comes across such a case, then the authority concerned would be held personally liable for the loss which the assessee might have suffered during the interregnum period - Writ application is disposed of: High Court [para 4 to 6]
- Petition disposed of: GUJARAT HIGH COURT
2022-TIOL-107-CESTAT-MAD
Sree Krishna Enterprises Vs CC
Cus - SCN having been issued by DRI are ab initio void in view of the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Canon India Ltd. 2021-TIOL-123-SC-CUS-LB and which has been followed in the case of Rani Enterprises [ 2021-TIOL-2257-HC-DEL-CUS ], Nitin Jatania - [ 2022-TIOL-61-CESTAT-MUM ], Arun Kumar Agarwal [ 2022-TIOL-65-CESTAT-DEL ] - Impugned orders, therefore, cannot sustain and are set aside: CESTAT [para 10]
Cus - Proprietor of the firm is no more - Appeal filed, therefore, stands abated in terms of rule 22 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982: CESTAT [para 9]
- Appeals allowed: CHENNAI CESTAT |
