2022-TIOL-1013-HC-DEL-CUS
Jagdeep Singh Vs CC
Cus - Principal grievance of the petitioners is that two separate adjudication orders i.e., orders dated 14.02.2022 and 26.03.2022 have been passed, which emerge out of a single show-cause notice dated 22.05.2019.
Held: Assertion appears to be correct - Matters to be listed on 05.09.2022 – In the meanwhile, no coercive measures will be taken against the petitioners, in pursuance of the aforementioned adjudication orders: High Court [para 2.1, 7]
- Matter listed: DELHI HIGH COURT
2022-TIOL-1012-HC-MUM-CUS
UoI Vs Kamal Jagat Malkani
Cus - Respondent No. 1 in its final order dated 28.07.2008, which is impugned in this petition, settled the case for declared duty amount of Rs. 26,38,713/- and imposed fine of Rs. One Lakh on respondent No. 2 for non-submission of Type Approval Certificate - As regards the dispute relating to classification, respondent No.1 found no misdeclaration on the part of respondent No. 2 and held that the vehicle in question was a ten seater and thus classifiable under CTH 87.02 - Respondent No. 2 paid the duty and fine as per order of respondent No. 1 and vehicle was released by Authorities - Petitioner UOI is impugning this order dated 28.07.2008 on the ground that no SCN had been issued and, therefore, respondents could not have filed an application for settlement and that the Settlement Commission could not have interpreted classification of goods under the Customs Tariff Act, 1975.
Held: Respondent No. 2 filed an application on 08.07.2003 before the Settlement Commission, viz., respondent No. 1, claiming that the department had given oral show-cause-notice and written show-cause-notice was waived vide letter dated 04.07.2008 - Issue of show-cause-notice is a non-issue - Settlement Commission has arrived at its conclusion purely based on the admission made by petitioner in the show-cause-notice - Therefore, even for a moment if the Bench goes on the basis that Settlement Commission has no jurisdiction to interpret on the classification of the goods, still the Settlement Commission has not made any such interpretation for petitioner to be unhappy - No reason to interfere with the impugned order - Petition dismissed: High Court [para 7, 9, 15]
- Petition dismissed: BOMBAY HIGH COURT
2022-TIOL-1011-HC-KOL-CUS
Nexage Innovations Vs DCC
Cus -Intra Court appeal filed against order dated 17.06.2022 -Inasmuch as appellant is aggrieved on account of the writ court having declined to pass any interim order -The petitioner had filed the petition inter alia seeking a direction to direct the respondents, in particular, the 2nd respondent for removal of "Risky Exporter" Tag from the Indian Customs, EDI System.
Held: Bench is of the considered view that there was no scope for granting any interim order in the writ petition as, if granted would tantamount to granting the main relief at an interlocutory stage which is impermissible under law - The petitioner was informed that some of their suppliers were found in the list to be suspected suppliers, the ITC available on the basis of the invoices of these suppliers is under scrutiny and the jurisdictional commissioners are entrusted with the verification of these suppliers - On receipt of the same, the petitioner informed the Additional Commissioner in the Office of the 3rd respondent by letter dated 28.09.2021 informing them that they have reversed the ITC credit of Rs. 1185781.26 along with 15% penalty on the same, that is, Rs. 177867.18 and the DRC-O3 for the transactions were annexed to the said letter -However, the request of the appellant/petitioner to remove the "Risky Exporter" tag from the Indian Customs, EDI System so as to enable them to start their business again was not acted upon, therefore, the petition - It will not augur well to continue to brand the petitioner as a "Risky Exporter" in the absence of fresh material available on record - In any event, the tag which has been fastened to the EDI System pertaining to the petitioner as a "Risky Exporter" has been done without notice to the petitioner - Writ petition stands disposed of with the following orders viz. to lift/remove the "Risky Exporter" tag affixed in the Indian Customs, EDI System concerning the petitioner within three weeks; respondent/s shall process the duty drawback claim made by the petitioner as well as the refund claim of the IGST within three weeks -Appeal/writ petition disposed of: High Court [para 4, 5, 9, 12]
- Appeal disposed of: CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
2022-TIOL-1010-HC-MUM-CUS
Pinnacle Life Science Pvt Ltd Vs UoI
Cus - Petitioner is seeking relief in the form of direction to Respondent Nos. 3 and 4 to permit petitioner to amend six shipping bills for inserting Advance Authorization details thereon which according to petitioner was not mentioned on the GST Invoices and Commercial Invoices due to clerical error - Petitioner is also seeking relief in the form of conversion of the aforesaid shipping bills from Drawback Scheme to Advance Authorization Scheme - By the impugned letter dated 30th December 2021, Respondent No. 3 rejected petitioner's amendment application on the ground that (a) the request in respect of five of the six shipping bills was time barred [relying upon Circular No. 36/2010-Customs dated 23rd September, 2010] without going into the merits of the case; and (b) as regards sixth shipping bill, documentary evidence has not been produced
Held: Such a circular No. 36/2010-Customs could not have been issued by the Central Board of Excise & Customs (CBEC) providing for three months' time period to make a request for amending the shipping bills - This is because in Section 149 of the Act, no time period has been prescribed and if in any specific statutory provision of law, no time period has been prescribed, then such circular could not have been issued by the CBEC – Time limit of three months laid down vide paragraph No. 3(a) of the circular is especially illegal and without jurisdiction - Impugned communication dated 30th December, 2021 is quashed and set aside and Respondent No. 3 is directed to consider the amendment application without raising an issue of time limit and dispose the amendment application on merits and in accordance with law, within a period of six weeks – Petition disposed of: High Court [para 6, 7]
- Petition disposed of: BOMBAY HIGH COURT
2022-TIOL-1008-HC-KERALA-ST
Shaji Joseph Vs DCCT & CE
ST - Appellant has challenged the original order imposing service tax on the appellant.
Held: Section 85 of the Finance Act, 1994 deals with Appeals to the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals) and gives the right to any person aggrieved by any decision or order passed by any lower adjudicating authority to file an appeal - In view of the specific provision for appeal under the statute, Court is not justified in entertaining the Writ Appeal under Article 226 of the Constitution of India - As far as the condition for pre-deposit for filing the appeal, the same cannot be taken as a ground for entertaining the jurisdiction of this court - When a statute prescribes a pre-condition for filing the appeal, the same cannot be bypassed by this court - No ground to interfere with the judgment of the Single Judge - Writ Appeal is dismissed: High Court [para 6]
- Appeal dismissed: KERALA HIGH COURT
