2022-TIOL-216-HC-KERALA-ST
CD Sunny Vs ACCT & CE
ST - Appeals filed under section 85(1) of the Finance Act, 1994 - Fees for preferring the appeal was Rs.16,410/- in W.P.(C) No. 12552 of 2021 and Rs.72,609/- in W.P.(C) No. 12576 of 2021 - As per prevalent procedure, the fee for appeal ought to have been paid through the online method - Petitioner alleges that he could not pay the same through online method due to technical snags - In order to avoid period of limitation, petitioner took two demand drafts on 23.12.2020, both drawn through the State Bank of India, High Court Branch - However, the second respondent refused to accept the demand drafts submitted by the petitioner and due to non-acceptance, the appeals have not been considered and the same are kept aside - In the above circumstances, petitioner has sought a direction to accept the demand drafts submitted in lieu of the online payment.
Held: Petitioner had taken demand drafts as early as on 23.12.2020 - The said date is within the period of limitation itself - Therefore the bona fides of the petitioner cannot be doubted - In such a view of the matter, since the petitioner has now expressed his willingness to pay the filing fee under the online method, an opportunity to make such payment ought to be made available to the petitioner - If such payment is made, the appellate authority shall accept the same into its files and consider the appeals on merits - Petitions disposed of: High Court [para 9]
- Petitions disposed of: KERALA HIGH COURT
2022-TIOL-141-CESTAT-MAD
Mohanlal Jewellers Pvt Ltd Vs CGST & CE
CX - Department confirmed the duty only on the premise that the appellants have manufactured branded jewellery - Appeal filed.
Held : What the adjudicating authority has lost sight of is the fact that though the appellants have inscribed/embossed the name of the customers as well as Govt. of Tamil Nadu and Chettinad Cements Corporation Pvt. Ltd., it could not be said to be a 'brand' used in connection of trade and commerce engaged by the person - It is not the case of the department that either of the customers of the appellant is engaged in the trade of gold coins bearing their brand - The very concept of branding goods is not appreciated in a legal and proper manner - As long as the customers of appellants are not engaged in the trade/commerce/business, inscription on the gold coins cannot said to have in connection in the course of trade with the product manufacture - benefit of exemption notification 12/2012-CX available - The impugned order is not legally sustainable, hence set aside and appeal is allowed: CESTAT [para 5.1, 5.3]
- Appeal allowed: CHENNAI CESTAT
2022-TIOL-140-CESTAT-DEL
Devtara Industries Vs CC
Cus - The issue arises is, whether fine and penalty under Section 112(a)/114AA of Customs Act, 1962 on appellant and its Partner have been rightly imposed - Appellant who is engaged in manufacture of all kinds of textile made-ups and fabrics had imported capital goods under Zero duty EPCG scheme - They utilised the said authorisation on import of capital goods during financial year 2013-14 when they imported capital goods and thus saved imported duty - Appellant due to inadvertence applied to DGFT for issue of SHIS script to save the duty - This script was sold/transferred by appellant - Allegation by Revenue is that the appellant have wrongly utilised benefit under two schemes in same financial year which was not permissible as per Foreign Trade Policy and thus appellant violated the Conditions of Notification No. 102/2009-Cus. - Appellant came to know of this mistake when DRI issued summons - The appellant immediately on learning of mistake committed, repaid the amount of duty saved on import under zero duty alongwith interest under information to Department - Appreciating that there is no mala fide on the part of appellant and further in view of indulgence/realisation by Government appreciating the difficulty faced by trade, there being confusion on the same, confiscation, fine and penalty imposed on appellants is set aside: CESTAT
- Appeals allowed: DELHI CESTAT
2022-TIOL-139-CESTAT-MAD
S Sakthikumar Vs CGST & CE
ST - Refund claim - A SCN was issued to appellant proposing to reject the refund claim on the ground that the same was hit by limitation of time - The decision of High Court of Judicature at Madras in case of M/s. 3E Infotech 2018-TIOL-1268-HC-MAD-ST is binding wherein it is held that when service tax is paid by mistake, a claim for refund cannot be barred by limitation merely because the period of limitation under Section 11B of Central Excise Act, 1944 had expired - The rejection of refund is unsustainable - Hence, impugned order of First Appellate Authority is set aside: CESTAT
- Appeal allowed: CHENNAI CESTAT
2022-TIOL-138-CESTAT-AHM
Vaibhav Auto Industries Vs CCE
CX - The issue involved is of clandestine removal of Chhakada - Appellant submits that under same investigation, there was some other case along with present case was made out including the one of the case of Atithi Gokul Automobile Works in which vide Final Order Nos. A/10885-10886/2014, dated 01.05.2014 as reported in 2014-TIOL-821-CESTAT-AHM , the matter was remanded - From the said order, it is clear that Adjudicating Authority has not followed the principles of natural justice in as much as the cross-examination was not allowed - Therefore, following the said decision of Tribunal, matter is remanded to the Adjudicating Authority for passing afresh order, considering the observations made by Tribunal in referred order: CESTAT
- Matter remanded: AHMEDABAD CESTAT |
