|
2022-TIOL-558-HC-SHILLONG-CX
Meghalaya Cast And Alloys Pvt Ltd Vs CCGST & CE
CX - The appeal arises out of an order of Tribunal in a matter on rebound - Indeed, the appeal has also to be confined to the extent that the order impugned deals with penalty and the order of March 22, 2018 which imposed additional duty cannot be reopened by a side-wind so to say, since the assessee had accepted such order and did not complain there against within reasonable time - In discussing the aspect of "intent to evade", as used in Section 11AC(1)(a) of the Act of 1944, Tribunal found that once it was established that the assessee had not valued the goods in accordance with said Rules of 2000 and when the assessee produced no evidence to substantiate its claim of having cleared the goods to the related parties at the prevailing market prices, intention to evade duty payable would arise and an adverse inference could be drawn against the assessee - Tribunal found that the assessee had indulged in under-valuation as per its convenience, "to short pay the duty amount which has not been rebutted by submitting the prices charged to independent parties" - The Tribunal then referred to the notification of March 27, 2008 that had not been placed before Tribunal in course of hearing that culminated in the order dated March 22, 2018 and observed that in view of such notification, the assessee herein was not entitled to complete refund - Tribunal has furnished adequate reasons to justify the perception that the appellant had intended to evade payment of duty - The initial order had merely waived the penalty without indicating any reason - Since appropriate reasons relevant to the issue have been indicated in order impugned upon due considerations being taken into account, O-I-A does not call for any interference: HC
- Appeal dismissed: SHILLONG HIGH COURT
2022-TIOL-554-HC-AHM-CUS Gurjeet Singh Walia Vs UoI
Cus - Initiation of action on the part of the DRI on an intelligence is severally questioned when the proper officer has already held in favour of the assessee classifying the item of export under a different head - Court in very strong words has disapproved the arbitrary act on the part of the lower adjudicating authority in ignoring the binding precedents – Petition is partly allowed - SCN in the present form is quashed and set aside with all consequential actions with a clarification that for the shipping bills not covered by the decision of PRATIBHA SYNTEX LIMITED (supra), the authority shall be permitted to proceed if allowed otherwise under the law - Reliance placed also upon the case of M/s. CANON INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED = 2021-TIOL-123-SC-CUS-LB to urge that the DRI has no powers to initiate action against the petitioner is surely an additional and potent ground for the Court to regard the binding decision of the Apex Court and hold in favour of the petitioner - Writ application stands disposed of: High Court [para 2, 3]
- Petition disposed of: GUJARAT HIGH COURT
2022-TIOL-553-HC-MAD-CUS
Goyal Impex And Industries Ltd Vs CC
Cus - Petitioner challenges the SCN dated 19.06.2021 - Petitioner submits that the impugned Show Cause Notice was issued by the first respondent on the ground that the refund amount of Rs.2,26,75,276/- has been sanctioned erroneously based on false and fabricated documents - Petitioner contends that a refund which has been granted pursuant to an appealable order cannot be said to have been erroneously refunded, therefore, they pray for quashing the impugned Show Cause Notice as it has been issued allegedly without jurisdiction and without authority of law.
Held: It cannot be said that the impugned Show Cause Notice is without jurisdiction - Whether the petitioners have indeed indulged in submitting fraudulent and fabricated documents / certificates to wrongly claim refund of duty paid, is the subject matter of evidence - A Writ Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India cannot examine the factual aspects - Writ Petition is premature - Petitioners have to submit to the jurisdiction of the respondents by filing suitable reply to the impugned Show Cause Notice - If the petitioners suffer an adverse order, there is a hierarchy of the Appellate Authority under the Customs Act, 1962 - Therefore, the petitioners have to work out their remedy before the Authorities under the Act - The first respondent is directed to complete the proceedings initiated pursuant to the impugned Show Cause Notice after following the principles of natural justice and affording an opportunity of personal hearing, preferably within a period of six months - Petition is dismissed: High Court [para 15 to 17]
- Petition dismissed: MADRAS HIGH COURT
2022-TIOL-552-HC-MP-ST
Vikramaditya Hotel Pvt Ltd Vs UoI
ST - On the ground that due to COVID-19, the petitioner faced final crunch and could not deposit the amount of settlement arrived at by the Designated Committee under the SVLDRS, 2019, the petitioner sought time till September 2020 to deposit the same - However, without deciding the petitioner's representation, respondent No.3 again issued a demand notice dated 11.01.2021 directing the petitioner to clear the dues in terms of the order dated 14.01.2020 - Hence, the present writ petition.
Held : Admittedly the petitioner could not deposit the determined amount under the Scheme of Rs.18,96,770/- till 30.06.2020. By letter dated 30.06.2020, respondent No.1 has only directed all the Principal Chief Commissioner / Chief Commissioner CGST & CX All Zones to contact all major declarant who were unable to pay up to 30.06.2020 due to any difficulty but the period of Scheme was not extended by fixing time limit upto 30.09.2020 - Once the Scheme has come to an end, no benefit can be extended to the petitioner hence the direction to decide the representation would be a futile exercise - No case for interference is made out in the matter - Petition dismissed: High Court [para 5, 7, 8]
- Petition dismissed: MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT
2022-TIOL-321-CESTAT-AHM
Aym Syntex Ltd Vs CCE & ST
CX - The issue involved is, whether the services of electricity expenses in connection with their head office is admissible to factory - Appellant factory is the sole factory for which head office is located outside the factory - The head office is involved in activity related to factory's manufacturing and sale of goods - The Head office is not operating for any other activity other than the activity relating to factory operations, therefore, merely because the head office is located outside the factory, it cannot be said that the service received and used in head office does not relate to manufacturing activity - Had this same office is maintained in factory premises, there would not have any objection by Revenue - The location of head office is immaterial so long it is used only for operation of factory's activities, therefore, any service received in head office is in relation to manufacturing activity of appellant - Even though the input service was received by head office but since it is in connection with overall business activity of manufacturing unit, credit is admissible - Accordingly, the impugned order is set aside: CESTAT
- Appeal allowed: AHMEDABAD CESTAT 2022-TIOL-320-CESTAT-DEL
Perfect Cargo And Logistics Vs CC
Cus - Commissioner passed the impugned order in which he held that since such a large number of the exporters are untraceable, it appears that the Customs Broker has failed to comply with the obligations cast upon it under Regulation 10(n) of the CBLR 2018 and revoked its licence, and imposed a penalty of Rs.50,000/- upon it – Petitioner assails this order.
Held: The sole basis on which the SCN was issued was that Directorate General of Analytics and Risk Management (DGARM) had sent a communication to the Commissioner that some of the exporters whose documents were processed by the appellant did not exist - There are no relied upon documents in the SCN nor is there any list of documents attached to the SCN - Even the letter/communication of DGARM on the basis of which the SCN was issued was also not enclosed with the SCN - Finding in the impugned order that the appellant has violated Regulation 10 (n) of CBLR 2018 is also based on nothing but a communication which the Commissioner is said to have received from DGARM - In this case, there are no details in the SCN or in the inquiry report or in the impugned order as to how the DGARM came to the conclusion that the exporters did not exist and how after considering the defence submissions, the Commissioner came to a conclusion that the appellant had violated Regulation 10(n) of CBLR, 2018 - The entire case, therefore, is not built on conclusive evidence – Bench is surprised that the Commissioner found it proper to deprive the appellant and its employees of their livelihood in such a casual and callous manner - Appeal is allowed by setting aside the impugned order and with consequential relief - Respondent shall restore the Customs Broker licence of the appellant within 10 days: CESTAT [para 9, 10, 12, 13]
- Appeal allowed: DELHI CESTAT |
