|
2022-TIOL-340-HC-DEL-CUS
Nipun Miglani Vs Intelligence Officer
Cus - Petitioner lays a challenge to Seizure Memo whereby Respondent has seized the vehicle - A perusal of Seizure Memo shows that the car in question was imported into India in the name of a diplomat by fraudulently availing the benefit of exemption Notfn 3 of 57 - The vehicle was detained for further investigation and it was found that the registration of vehicle was done in the name of a non-privileged person by forging Bill of Entry and other documents and accordingly seized under Section 110 of Customs Act, 1962, under a reasonable belief that the vehicle was liable to confiscation under provisions of said Act - In view of allegations in Seizure Memo and in absence of justification or grounds for release of vehicle as well as considering the fact that as per the Seizure Memo, Bills of Entry were forged and benefit of exemption Notification was wrongly availed, no reason found to interfere in Seizure Memo and same is set aside - Petition is wholly frivolous and misconceived, same is accordingly dismissed with cost of Rs. 1,00,000/-: HC
- Writ petition dismissed: DELHI HIGH COURT
2022-TIOL-204-CESTAT-AHM
Rasrasna Foods Pvt Ltd Vs CC
Cus - Appellant had imported a consignment of Sajji Khar - They holds FSSAI license and sample conforms to the standards laid down - On filing of Ex-Bond Bill of entry by appellant for clearance of goods of warehouse, a SCN was issued proposing confiscation of goods under Section 111(d) on the ground that as per FSSAI letter, Sajji Khar was a non-specified product and approval under Non-Specified Food Regulations of 2017 was required - From the clarification from FSSAI, it is clear that the imported consignments of Sajji Khar/Papad Khar does not require product approval under FSS (Approval of non-specified food and food ingredients) Regulations, 2017 - As certificate, Authorised Officers confirmed the sample to the standards and provisions laid down under Regulation 2.1 of 'Other Foods or Foods Not Specified (Contaminants Toxins and Residues) Regulation, 2011' therefore, on this basis the appellant's imports cannot be found faulted - The CBIC instruction dated 21.05.2020 was issued much after not only the import of goods but also after filing of warehousing Bill of entry - Same product i.e. Sajji Khar has been allowed to be imported without the condition as imposed by department in the present case on the earlier occasions by various importers - The goods are not liable for confiscation - Accordingly, the impugned order is set aside: CESTAT
- Appeal allowed: AHMEDABAD CESTAT
2022-TIOL-203-CESTAT-DEL
Mithila Drugs Pvt Ltd Vs CCGST
CX - The issue arises is, whether refund has been rightly rejected on CVD + SAD paid for regularisation of advance licence (import licence) - Payment of CVD and SAD subsequently during GST regime, for the imports made prior to 30.06.2017 is not disputed under the advance authorisation scheme - It is also not disputed that the appellant have paid CVD and SAD in August, 2018 by way of regularisation on being so pointed out by Revenue Authority - Further, Court below have erred in observing that without producing proper records of duty paid invoices in manufacture of dutiable final product, refund cannot be given - Refund of CVD and SAD in question is allowable, as credit is no longer available under GST regime, which was however available under erstwhile regime of Central Excise prior to 30.06.2017 - Accordingly, appellant is entitled to refund under the provisions of Section 142(3) and (6) of the CGST Act - Such refund shall be granted within a period of 45 days alongwith interest under Section 11BB of Central Excise Act - Impugned orders are set aside: CESTAT
- Appeals allowed: DELHI CESTAT
2022-TIOL-202-CESTAT-DEL
Abdul Khalique Vs CCGST
ST - The only grievance of assessee is about the penalty being confirmed against him against the duty liability - To adjudicate as to whether the said imposition is not permissible being disproportionate, Tribunal rely upon the decision of Karnataka High Court in case of M/s. Philip Electronics India Ltd. wherein it has been held that the penalty cannot be more than the tax amount to be recovered from assessee - Keeping in view the decision in Hindustan Steel Limited 2002-TIOL-148-SC-CT-LB and also keeping in view that per day penalty at the rate of Rs.200/- can be levied in terms of sub-clause (3) of section 77 of Central Excise Act and the SCN is silent about specifically invoking the said sub-clause (3), the grievance of appeal stands already covered - The issue, therefore, is no more res-integra - Imposition of penalty of Rs.2,56,000/-+ Rs.5000 + 40318/- as against the duty demand of Rs.40,318/- is therefore, held to be unreasonable being absolutely disproportionate - Question of adjusting the said amount except for Rs.40,318/- from the refund sanctioned to the appellant, therefore, does not arise - The order under challenge is hereby set aside - However, adjudication with reference to impugned SCN's is still pending due to matter being remanded back for afresh adjudication of claim for abatement and reverse charge, same shall take its own independent course - Hence, setting aside of present order under challenge to the extent beyond deduction of Rs.40,318/- shall not be prejudicial to the interest of either of the parties to the lis: CESTAT
- Appeal allowed: DELHI CESTAT |
|
