2022-TIOL-247-HC-AHM-CUS
Mehta Stone Consortium Vs CC
Cus - Writ applicant seeks to challenge the legality and validity of the letters dated 4th November 2020 and 4th December 2020 respectively declining to grant the amendments of the shipping bills under Section 149 of the Customs Act, 1962 so as to enable the writ applicant to claim benefit under the Merchandise Exports from India Scheme.
Held: Whether to permit the necessary amendments in the shipping bills would be within the purview of the Commissioner of Customs himself and not the DGFT - It is only if the Commissioner of Customs permits such amendments in the shipping bills, then the DGFT would come into picture - No reason has been assigned in the impugned communications as to why such amendments have been declined - Both the communications dated 4th November 2020 and 4th December 2020 are quashed and matter is remitted to the Principal Commissioner of Customs, Mundra, Commissionerate (Kutch) to look into the issue afresh and take an appropriate decision - Principal Commissioner to give hearing to the writ applicants at the earliest and take a final decision by passing an appropriate reasoned order by 23rd February 2022 - Petitions disposed of: High Court [para 13, 14]
- Petitions disposed of: GUJARAT HIGH COURT
2022-TIOL-245-HC-MAD-CUS
Good Shepherd System Services Vs Addl. Commissioner
Cus - Fabrication of export documents - Alleged fraudulent availment of duty drawback without the physical availability of the export cargo - Petitioner has challenged the impugned show cause notice dated 29.03.2019 calling upon him to show cause as to why penalty should not be imposed under Section 114-A of the Customs Act, 1962.
Held: Petitioner cannot challenge the show cause notice and the Writ Petition is premature - It is open to the petitioner to give a suitable reply to the show cause notice and participate in the adjudication mechanism prescribed under the Customs Act, 1962, to distance itself from any liability that may be fastened against the petitioner pursuant to the proposal contained in the impugned show cause notice dated 29.03.2019 - There are several disputed facts which would require a detailed adjudication and cannot be decided in a summary proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution of India - Writ Petition is, therefore, misconceived and is liable to be dismissed - The petitioner is directed to participate in the adjudication mechanism prescribed under the Customs Act by filing proper return statement - Writ Petition is accordingly dismissed - SCN shall not be adjudicated by the Officers against whom the F.I.R. has been registered to maintain neutrality: High Court [para 6, 7, 8]
- Petition dismissed: MADRAS HIGH COURT
2022-TIOL-150-CESTAT-BANG Sac Industry Vs CCE, C & ST
CX - Appellant is a manufacturer of "handmade laundry soap without the aid of power" and is registered as a Women's Society under Tamil Nadu Societies Registration Act, 1975; all the members of the society are women and employees/labourers are also women from the nearby villages - The tenor of SCNs, inter alia, that the name of Women's Society does not figure in any of statutory documents, does not figure in website of Sabari Soaps, that the labels and packing do not contain the name of Women's Society are the reasons for denying the benefit of Notfn 88/88-C.E. - There are primary evidences/documents like registration certificate under the Tamil Nadu Societies Registration Act, 1975, certificate issued by Tehasildar and by these alone Tribunal is satisfied that the appellant is a society and is located in the rural area - Appellant has even satisfied the inclusive part of definition as well - Denial of benefit of exemption is patently wrong and unsustainable - Unfortunately, only grave allegations are made, but no supporting documentary evidence is relied upon by the authority who issued the SCN - From the impugned order also, there is no contrary findings based on any supporting material piece of evidence to demolish the contentions of appellant, which are duly supported by concrete evidences - The denial of benefit of Notfn 88/88-C.E. has been made on whims and fancies and without there being the support of any documentary evidences and hence, the same cannot be sustained : CESTAT
- Appeals allowed: BANGALORE CESTAT
2022-TIOL-149-CESTAT-DEL
Millenium Build-Con Nri City Vs CST
ST - The issue arises for consideration is as to whether the Commissioner (A) was justified in dismissing the appeal for the reason that it was filed beyond the statutory period of two months provided in Statute with a further provision that a further delay of one month could be condoned by Commissioner (A) provided, he was satisfied that the appellant was prevented by sufficient cause from preferring the appeal within the stipulated time - The provision of Section 35 of CEA, 1944 relating to appeals before Commissioner (A) had come up for consideration before Supreme Court in Singh Enterprises 2007-TIOL-231-SC-CX - The provisions of Section 35 of CEA, 1944 are pari materia with Section 85(3A) of Finance Act - The Supreme Court held that the period upto which the prayer for condonation can be accepted is limited by proviso to sub-section (1) of Section 35 of the Act and the position is crystal clear that the appellate authority has no power to allow the appeal to be presented beyond the period of thirty days after the expiry period of sixty days - In other words, appellate authority can entertain the appeal by condoning the delay only upto 30 days beyond the normal period for preferring the appeal, which is 60 days - The Commissioner (A) was, therefore, justified in dismissing the appeal on the ground of limitation: CESTAT
- Appeal dismissed: DELHI CESTAT
2022-TIOL-148-CESTAT-MAD
Chendur Enterprises Vs CC
Cus - The goods imported by appellant are glass bottles having specific measurement of 45 ml, 80 ml, 180 ml, 380 ml and 730 ml - Appellant has classified the goods under CTH 70109000 whereas the department has applied classification under 70139900 to demand anti-dumping duty - The description of goods falling under CTH 7013 shows that only glassware used as tableware or kitchenware fall under the said Heading - Further, HSN Note of 7010 specifically states that the said Heading covers all glass containers of kind commonly used commercially for conveyance or packing of liquids or solid products - It is evident that the impugned goods fall under CTH 7010 and does not fall under 7013 - The classification adopted by appellant is correct - Consequently, the anti-dumping duty collected alleging classification of the goods to be 7013 cannot sustain - The impugned order is set aside: CESTAT
- Appeal allowed: CHENNAI CESTAT |
