2022-TIOL-946-HC-MAD-CUS
Thirumurugan Durairaj Vs Principal Commissioner and Ex-Officio
Cus - Petitioner has sought for quashing the impugned order dated 30.11.2018 dismissing the revision application filed by the petitioner against the order-in-appeal and to pass an order of direction, directing to RE-EXPORT the 3 Nos., OF GOLD CHAINS, WEIGHING 599.12 GRAMS, VALUED AT Rs.14,90,730/- without imposition of any Redemption Fine and Penalty and to Refund the Redemption Fine of Rs.6,00,000/- and Penalty of Rs.1,00,000/- paid by the petitioner.
Held: No part of cause of action has arisen within the jurisdiction of this Court, therefore, on this count alone this petition is liable to be dismissed - That apart, the petitioner has also re-exported the crude gold which was ordered to be confiscated and subsequently released pursuant to the impugned order, therefore, on this count also there is no merits in the present writ petition - Petitioner was duty bound to declare under provision of Baggage Rules, 2016 read with Customs Baggage Declaration Regulations, 2013 - As per Sub-clause (b) to proviso Rule 3 read with annexure 1 of the Baggage Rules, 2016, gold or silver ornaments in any other form cannot be allowed to be cleared duty free as bonafide baggage if they exceeded Rs.15,000/- - Petitioner attempted to evade duty, therefore, the order passed by the first respondent Principal Commissioner & Ex-Officio Additional Secretary to the Government of India as the Revisional Authority under Section 129DD of the Customs Act, 1962 merits no interference - Petition dismissed: High Court [para 22, 23, 24]
- Petition dismissed: MADRAS HIGH COURT
2022-TIOL-945-HC-MAD-ST
Priya Constructions Vs CGST & CE
ST - WCS - Petitioner was rendering works contract during the period in dispute between 10.9.2004 and 31.10.2008 but the said service became taxable from 1.6.2007 - Refund sought of tax paid during investigation but rejected - Appeal was allowed by the CESTAT vide order dated 22.11.2018 with consequential relief to the petitioner - Pursuant to the above order of the Tribunal, the 2nd respondent curiously [since only Rs.57,03,608/- was deposited during investigation] sanctioned refund claim for a sum of Rs.98,27,018/- but without interest - Petition filed seeking interest at 6% on the amount deposited by the petitioner during the investigation prior to issue of the show cause notice.
Held: Department has not preferred an appeal, therefore to that extent the rights of the petitioner stand crystallised though wrongly - The amount of tax which was paid by the petitioner for the subsequent period after 1.6.2007 could not have been refunded - However, curiously it appears to have also has been ordered to be refunded back - This would require a proper examination which fact is not forthcoming either from the petitioner or respondent - Under these circumstances, Bench remits the case back to the second respondent to re-examine the issue and pay/adjust interest payable to the petitioner firm and out of the amount paid - If there was an erroneous refund of the tax paid for the period after 31.10.2008, the respondents are directed to take appropriate steps to recover the aforesaid amount from the petitioner - This exercise shall be carried out by the second respondent within a period of six months - Writ petition is disposed of: High Court [para 14, 16, 17, 18]
- Petition disposed of: MADRAS HIGH COURT
2022-TIOL-944-HC-MUM-CX
Peekay International Pvt Ltd Vs UOI
CX - Petitioner had purchased four consignments of cotton / polyester fabrics (subject matter of this petition) from the manufacturers against Form CT-1 and ARE-1's for export - Goods covered under three shipping bills and four ARE-1's, which were stored in the CWC shed at the time of fire, were totally destroyed / lost along with goods of other exporters - Petitioner was served with a show cause notice demanding CE duty along with interest from the date of removal of the goods for export from the place of procurement till payment of duty in terms of the bond and the aforesaid Notification 42/2001-CE(NT) - Demand was confirmed and the appeal was rejected - Further appeal u/s 35EE was also rejected, therefore, the present petition - Petitioner also seeks a direction to respondents to issue the certificate for remission of duty.
Held : The admitted position is that goods in this case have been destroyed by fire and it is not respondent's case that the destruction has happened not by an unavoidable accident. The respondent's only case as stated in the impugned order (paragraph 6.3) is that goods did not get destroyed before removal. Section 4(3)(c) of the Central Excise Act defines "place of removal” inter alia as a warehouse or any other place or premises wherein the excisable goods have been permitted to be deposited without payment of duty, therefore, if the goods are destroyed or lost due to unavoidable accident at any time before removal, the Commissioner may grant remission of duty - In this case, the goods were destroyed in fire in CFS, CWC warehouse where it was permitted to be deposited without payment of duty and after Customs inspection, and therefore, CWS CFS is a warehouse or place permitted under Section 4(3)(c)(ii) of the Act - Hence, the goods have been destroyed before removal - It is not respondent's case either that goods have been diverted by petitioner - Since the bond given by the exporter also gives an undertaking for the due arrival of the goods at the place of export and the export therefrom under customs supervision, the place from where the sale would take or the ownership of the goods will be transferred from seller to buyer, in the facts and circumstances of this case, will be the CWC, CFS warehouse - Admittedly, the fire took place and the goods got destroyed in the CWC, CFS and, therefore, the goods were destroyed before removal from the place where it was stored - Bench is of the opinion that the goods cleared for export under bond were destroyed before the same could be exported and, therefore, should be treated as having been destroyed before removal - This would be the fair interpretation of Rule 21 and, therefore, the primary condition of eligibility for remission of duty on the exported goods is fulfilled as required under Rule 21 of the Central Excise Rules, 2001 - Goods have been satisfactorily accounted for and petitioner is entitled to the Certificate granting remission of excise duty for the goods, destroyed in the fire - Petition allowed: High Court [para 13 to 17, 20]
- Petition allowed: BOMBAY HIGH COURT
