2022-TIOL-82-SC-CUS
Munjal Showa Ltd Vs CC & CE
Cus - Appellant imported consignments using Transfer Release Advices (TRAs) issued by Bombay Customs House - On verification, it was found that the DEPB licences on the basis of which the TRAs were issued were not genuine - Goods were cleared in May/June 2003 and by letter dated 05.08.2003, the Assistant Commissioner informed the appellant that the TRAs issued against the DEPB scrips were forged and that the DEPB were also forged and, therefore, the appellant was required to deposit the duty with interest in lieu of the benefits availed - Appellant informed that they were taking steps to lodge FIR against transferor and deposited the amount of duty on 12.08.2003 under protest - SCN was issued on 03.10.2006 - Appellant challenged the same by arguing on the ground of limitation and that they had no intention to evade duty - Order of Commissioner insofar as duty liability was concerned was upheld by CESTAT but remanded the matter to original authority on the issue of penalty (and where it is still pending) - This order of Appellate Tribunal was appealed before High Court but the same was dismissed, therefore, the appeal before Supreme Court.
Held: It has been found that the DEPB licenses/Scrips, on which the exemption benefit was availed of by the appellant(s) (as buyers of the forged/ fake DEPB licenses/Scrips) were found to be forged one and it was found that the DEPB licenses/Scrips were not issued at all - A fraud was played and the exemption benefit was availed on such forged/fake DEPB licenses/Scrips - In that view of the matter and on the principle that fraud vitiates everything and such forged/fake DEPB licenses/Scrips are void ab initio , it cannot be said that the Department acted illegally in invoking the extended period of limitation - In the facts and circumstances, the Department was absolutely justified in invoking the extended period of limitation - In the present case insofar as the penalty proceedings are concerned, the matter is remanded by the Tribunal to the adjudicating authority, where it is reported to be pending - Both the appeals fail and are accordingly dismissed - Adjudicating authority to complete the penalty proceedings on remand at the earliest preferably within a period of six months: Supreme Court [para 8, 9, 11, 12]
- Appeals dismissed: SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
2022-TIOL-1299-HC-MAD-ST
West Asia Maritime Ltd Vs Addl. CST
ST - Petitioner challenges o-in-o of various dates - Facts adumbrated in the SCN are that the petitioner had received insurance services provided by Protection & Indemnity Clubs, an entity situated outside India that provided for coverage in respect of third party liabilities; that such services were taxable under the head ‘General Insurance'; that such services became taxable in the hands of the service recipients, the petitioner herein - Division Bench, in the appeal filed by the petitioner, held that availability of an alternate remedy was not an absolute bar to the maintainability of a writ petition - consequently, the order of the Single Judge was set aside and the matter restored to the file of the Single judge to be heard along with other petitions.
Held: In the present case, the entirety of the petitioners' claim rests upon the judgement in the case of Calcutta Club [ 2019-TIOL-449-SC-ST-LB ]; that the officer has not had the benefit of, in passing the impugned orders - Thus, it would be preempting the issue, and stepping into the shoes of the officer, for this Court to embark upon the exercise of assessment, in such circumstances - The petitioner is permitted to approach the appellate authority, and appeals, if filed within three weeks, will be taken on file without reference to limitation but subject to all other statutory conditions and decided expeditiously in line with the judgement in Calcutta Club and in accordance with law - Petitions are disposed of: High Court [para 19, 21]
- Petitions disposed of: MADRAS HIGH COURT
2022-TIOL-935-CESTAT-MAD
Cus - Provisional release of goods - First Appellate Authority has only followed the order of Tribunal in case of M/s. S.P. Associates 2021-TIOL-632-CESTAT-MAD and also the decision of Apex Court in case of M/s. Delhi Photocopiers to order for provisional release of goods - The ratio of said case has been followed by Tribunal in case of M/s. Kutty Impex, wherein it was held that First Appellate Authority was correct in allowing the appeal thereby ordering provisional release of goods in question and since there is no change in facts, same is required to be followed in case on hand as well - Following the said ratio decidendi, therefore, appeal of Revenue is dismissed: CESTAT- Appeal dismissed: CHENNAI CESTAT
Rane Brake Lining Ltd Vs CGST & CECX - Rejection of refund claim has been made only on the ground that appellant's claim was time-barred - Orders-in-Original came to be passed on 30.11.2019 and 30.12.2019, consequent to which application for refund was filed by appellant on 31.03.2021 - Appellant in response to SCN has taken support from order of Apex Court whereby, taking judicial notice of steep rise in COVID-19 Virus cases, Apex Court has directed that the period(s) of limitation as prescribed under any general or special laws in respect of all judicial or quasi-judicial proceedings, whether condonable or not, shall stand extended till further orders - Appellant had also relied on jurisdictional Madras High Court decision in case of M/s. GNC Infra LLP 2022-TIOL-55-HC-MAD-GST wherein, the High court after considering the order of Apex Court, has set aside the similar rejection order of refund passed by lower authorities and has further directed the adjudicating authority to examine refund application de novo and to make order afresh in accordance with relevant Act and Rules - In view of order of Apex Court and also clear directions of jurisdictional High court, order of Larger Bench in case of Veer Overseas Limited 2018-TIOL-1432-CESTAT-CHD-LB, relied upon by first Appellate Authority for denying refund does not survive - Matter remanded to the file of the adjudicating authority, who shall pass a de novo order, without going in to question of limitation: CESTAT- Matter remanded: CHENNAI CESTAT
Polyplex Corporation Ltd Vs CCGSTCX - Issue involved in appeals by same appellant is whether input service distributed by ISD have been rightly disallowed without invocation of Rule 14 of CCR, 2004 - Rule 14 of CCR have not been invoked in either of SCNs - No disallowance of Cenvat credit can be made save and except by resorting to provision of Rule 14 of CCR - Accordingly, appellant shall be entitled for consequential benefits, in accordance with law: CESTAT- Appeals allowed: NEW DELHI CESTAT
Fi-Tech Pvt Ltd Vs CCGST & CEST - Appellant was issued SCN proposing to reject claim of refund on the ground of improper address in invoice, non-mention of address in invoice - The error in address can at best be termed to be a clerical error for which appellant has also produced certificate from Service provider clarifying the error in floor number - Hence, when receipt of services is not in dispute, benefit of refund should not be denied to appellant as per settled jurisprudence in this regard - Thus, by following the judgment of Supreme Court in Sambhaji 2009-TIOL-79-SC-MISC, appeal succeeds and impugned orders are set aside - Department is directed to process the refund claim within 8 weeks: CESTAT
- Appeal allowed: KOLKATA CESTAT
