|
2022-TIOL-672-HC-MAD-CUS
Coramandel Electronics Vs DCC
Cus - The petitioner is an Exporter - With regard to import, which is input being utilised for manufacturing, duty exemption was availed by petitioner after getting necessary export obligation from respondent i.e. Joint Director General of Foreign Trade - According to petitioner, after availing the benefit of waiver of customs duty for import, subsequently, export obligation has been fulfilled and after fulfilling the export obligation, when application was made to 3rd respondent to issue Export Obligation Discharge Certificate, i.e., EODC, same has been kept pending without doing any decision for several years - A direction can be given to 3rd respondent to pass orders on application of petitioner within a time frame for issuance of EODC and based on which, further action could be decided by 1st respondent, till such time, the impugned order can be kept in abeyance: HC
- Writ petition disposed of: MADRAS HIGH COURT
2022-TIOL-671-HC-AHM-CUS
Pradeep Impex Vs UoI
Cus - The petitioner is engaged in trading of goods in the nature of PU Leather Fabric and Material. The goods after being imported by the writ applicant from various countries and those are, thereafter, sold in the local market - For the purpose of import, the writ applicant holds a valid and existing Import and Export code - In the relevant period, the petitioner imported various consignments of PU Leather cloth declaring the same to be the import of "Stock Lot PU Leather" of varied size - The value of the goods as declared was accepted by the Customs Department and appropriate amount towards the customs duty including the special additional duty was levied under Section 3(5) of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 and paid by the petitioner - Upon import, the goods were thereafter sold off in the domestic market under the cover of proper invoices and also on payment of the Sales Tax/Vat or CGST/SGST as applicable - In the transactions of the imported goods sold prior to 01.07.2017, the same were sold on the payment of the sales tax/vat - Whereas, for the domestic sale of the imported goods subsequent to 01.07.2017, the same was made under the cover of the GST invoices and upon payment of the appropriate CGST/SGST - The Central Government vide the Notification No. 102/2007 dated 14.10.2007 enacted an exemption scheme thereby allowing refund of the Special Additional duty paid at the time of import of goods subject to the condition that such imported goods are resold in the domestic market on payment of the Sales tax or VAT - As the goods imported by the writ applicant were subsequently sold in the domestic market on payment of the Sales Tax/VAT or GST, as the case may be, the writ applicant had from time to time claimed the benefit of refund under the said notification for various such consignments - In 2017, the erstwhile Central Excise and Service Tax regime was replaced by the new GST regime and in terms of the new transitional provisions, the assessee was made eligible for claiming ITC of CVD and SAD paid on the imported goods in the petitioner's possession and which were meant for supply on payment of GST under the new regime - On the date of the introduction of the new GST regime, the petitioner had various quantities of such imported goods on which the writ applicant had paid the CVD and SAD and therefore in terms of the transitional provision, the writ applicant filed the required TRANS-1 Form thereby claiming the input tax credit on the quantum of the CVD and SAD paid at the time of the import of goods - On import of one such consignment, investigations were commenced by the DRI on the basis of allegations - However, in the meantime, on import of one such consignment being the B/E No. 2088636 dated 14.06.2017, investigations were initiated by the DRI authorities on the basis of the allegations that the value declared by the writ applicant for the said consignment was not proper and correct - On the basis of such investigations, the department alleged that the goods imported under the said Bill of Entry as also various other Bills of Entry in the past, were not of the Stock Lot but were of the prime quality and therefore, the value declared by the petitioner was incorrect and improper and differential duty was required to be paid by the writ applicant on the enhanced value of such imports - SCN was issued alleging under-valuation of the PU Leather under 19 bills of entry - Subsequently, duty demand was raised, including demand for SAD, interest and imposition of penalty - A part of the amount demanded was paid by the petitioner & the same was appropriated - The petitioner then approached the Settlement Commission for resolution of the dispute - However the Commission came to reject the petitioner's application. Held - The only issue at hand is whether or not the Settlement Commission committed any irregularity in passing the order rejecting the petitioner's application for settlement - The Court accepts the principal contention of the petitioner that the Settlement Commission ought not to have gone into the merits of the SCN - If the Settlement Commission was of the view that the petitioner failed to make 'full and true' disclosure of the duty liability, it should have rejected the settlement application - The petitioner should have been relegated to suffer and undergo the adjudication mechanism and procedure as per the provisions of the Act - The order passed by the Settlement Commission to the extent the same 'adjudicate" and confirm the demand raised in the SCN is hereby quashed - The legal consequences as postulate in law would follow - The proceedings pursuant to the show cause notice before the authority concerned shall commence - The SCN shall be decided by the authority concerned on its own merits after hearing the parties: HC
- Writ petition partly allowed: GUJARAT HIGH COURT
2022-TIOL-390-CESTAT-DEL
Aksh Enterprises Vs CCGST & CE
ST - The appellant is engaged in providing taxable services - As per information received from Income Tax Department, it appeared that they have provided taxable services but they have not paid the service tax - Appellant was asked by Department to submit documents like income tax return, balance sheet, Form-26AS and ST-3 return for examining their liability to service tax - Thereafter, invoking extended period of limitation, SCN was issued demanding service tax with proposal to impose penalty under Section 78 of Finance Act, 1994 - Assailing the O-I-A, appellant urged that admittedly their gross turnover as per Form 26AS for financial year 2012-13 is Rs. 14,70,221/- - However, admittedly the receipt in lieu of services provided during the financial year 2012-13 is only Rs. 58,451/- - The appellant is entitled to pay service tax on receipt basis and admittedly their gross receipt from services provided during the period under dispute is Rs. 58,451/- which is supported by their bank statement, same has not been found to be untrue by the Court below - In this view of the matter, appellant is entitled to SSI exemption and are not liable to pay service tax for the financial year 2012-13 - Accordingly, impugned order is set aside: CESTAT
- Appeal allowed: DELHI CESTAT
2022-TIOL-389-CESTAT-DEL
Pacific International Vs CC
Cus - The appellant had filed Bill of Entry under Section 46 of Customs Act, 1962 by declaring the goods as "Worn Clothing & Other worn Articles" having negligible commercial value, declared in the invoice - Examination of goods was conducted - It was reported by SIIB that the said container contained 39 bales containing 64,350 pcs. of mixed ready-made garments of different varieties/ qualities/ size - Subsequently, goods of appellant were seized under Section 110 of Customs Act, 1962 and thereafter summons was received by appellant - In response, a letter was submitted, wherein it was categorically stated that appellant is not able to clear the goods imported in container, as the detention charges of container were too high than total invoice value - Admittedly in re-examination of goods done, same have been found to be used and worn clothing - Accordingly, Court below have erred in rejecting the classification and valuation as declared in the Bill of Entry - As the appellant has relinquished their title and claim on the imported goods in writing by letter, the whole proceedings against them is vitiated and uncalled for - Impugned order is set aside: CESTAT
- Appeal allowed: DELHI CESTAT
2022-TIOL-388-CESTAT-MAD
Zariwala Enterprises Vs CC
Cus - Appellant filed Bill of Entry for the import of 'Polyester Knitted Fabrics' classifiable and 'Viscose Synthetic Fabrics' - On the basis of test report and other details, it appeared that the goods were deliberately misdeclared with respect to description, quantity and value with an intention to undervalue the fabrics and to evade customs duties - The entire bales were seized under mahazar - SCN and corrigendum were issued to appellant requiring them to show cause as to why the declared value should not be rejected and re-determined - Appellant has not filed any reply to SCN and has not attended the personal hearing - Appellant has submitted that there is sufficient evidence to show that value of contemporaneous imports of identical goods are much different than the values given in table in SCN - So also, he disputes classification arrived at by department on the basis of lab test reports - Appellant has to be given one more chance to contest the case on merits - Matter remanded to adjudicating authority who is directed to conduct de novo adjudication of the matter - Appellant shall be given sufficient opportunity to adduce evidence on his behalf - The goods are still in detention of Customs - Adjudicating authority is directed to complete the de novo adjudication within a period of three months: CESTAT
- Matter remanded: CHENNAI CESTAT
|
|
