Capital Enterprises Vs CC & CE
ST - Being aggrieved by orders dated 11.09.2015 and 14.02.2017 passed by CESTAT, the present appeal has been filed - Appeal is barred by 545 days, hence an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act seeking condonation of delay is also filed.
Held: Bench is of the considered opinion that the appellant has not properly explained the delay in filing this Central Excise Appeal - The appellate Tribunal dismissed the appeal on 11.09.2015 - The appellant received the certified copy on 04.01.2016 and filed a review petition which came to be dismissed on 14.02.2017 - Thereafter, a writ petition was filed which was dismissed as withdrawn on 04.09.2017 with the liberty to file Central Excise Appeal - The appellant withdrew the appeal knowing that the remedy of appeal is available but despite that a review petition was filed before this High Court - Thereafter, without withdrawing the Review Petition this Appeal has been filed on 12.02.2019, i.e. after the lapse of one and half years whereas the limitation of filing this appeal is 180 days - Even if the limitation of 180 days is calculated from the date of withdrawal of the writ petition 04.09.2017, even then this appeal is hopelessly time barred - The appeal suffers from delay and latches hence, a delay of 545 days is not liable to be condoned - Even otherwise, the appellant is challenging the taxability of the services rendered by him and not the amount of tax or value of the goods, therefore, respondent has rightly objected to the maintainability of this appeal filed under Section 35G of the Central Excise Act 1944 - Inasmuch as in view of Section 35L of the Act of 1944, the appeal lies before the Apex Court - Appeal dismissed: High Court [para 10, 11]
- Appeal dismissed: MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT
AH Associates Vs CC
Cus - Deputy Commissioner (Policy), Noida Customs Commissionerate has requested her counterpart, the Deputy Commissioner (EDI System), Customs (Airport & General), New Customs House, to suspend the licence of the petitioner for all ports and CFS with effect from 17.05.2022, by exercising powers under Regulation 16 read with Regulation 7(3) of the Customs Broker Licensing Regulations, 2018 - Petition filed.
Held: Upon querying the counsel for the respondent Revenue as to whether any specific order has been passed pursuant to the receipt of the said communication dated 18.05.2022, the answer is in the negative - Bench is, therefore, of the view that for the moment, the petitioner cannot be prevented from carrying on its business, at least in the Delhi Commissionerate - However, it would be open to the respondents to take requisite steps, in accordance with Regulation 16 read with Regulation 7(3) of the Customs Broker Licensing Regulations, 2018 and other applicable provisions of law - Writ petition is disposed of: High Court [para 7, 8, 8.1, 9]
- Petition disposed of: DELHI HIGH COURT
2022-TIOL-947-CESTAT-DEL
Anjani Steel Ltd Vs CCE & ST
CX - The appellants herein are the manufacturer of sponge iron, M.S. Billets and TMT Bars - They are also availing the facility of Cenvat Credit of inputs, capital goods and service tax - On receiving an intelligence about the appellant to have been engaged in suppression of production and consequent clandestine removal of finished goods without the cover of invoice and without payment of Central Excise duty that the Officers of Central Excise Headquarters (Preventive) Branch, Raipur conducted search at the factory premises of the appellants from 25.02.2014 to 28.02.2014. Under three different Panchnamas of 25.02.2014, 26.02.2014 and 28.02.2014 were recorded recovery of some loose sheets and daily cost sheets (DCS) pertaining to different divisions of the appellants as were recovered from the Desktop of Shri Saumitro Ray - The printouts of all DCS were taken from appellant's Desktop in his presence and his statement was also recorded on 25.02.2014 - Statements of others found at the time of search were also recorded and DCS of all the divisions were scrutinised - The recovered loose sheets were also thoroughly perused, and Department observed that the appellant has cleared sponge iron, Billets and TMT Bars and coal without issuing invoices with the sole intention to not to pay the requisite Central Excise Duty on those clearances - Accordingly, the clandestine removal of the finished goods is alleged alongwith violation of several provisions of Central Excise Rules, 2002 - With these observations, the Show Cause Notice bearing No. 20710 dated 16.12.2015 was served upon the appellants proposing the duty demand of Rs. 46,32,957/- from the appellants alongwith interest and the imposition of penalty. The said proposal was partially accepted by the Original Adjudicating Authority vide which the demand of Rs. 26,44,134/- based on scrutiny of DCS and loose sheets was dropped - However, demand of Rs. 19,88,823/- was confirmed based on the noticed shortage of raw-material and finished goods - The appeal against the said order was filed by the Department - Commissioner (Appeals) vide order bearing No. 516-18-19 dated 28.02.2019 has allowed the appeal of the Department.
Held - For the support of those documents, Commissioner (Appeals) has laid utmost emphasis upon the statements recorded during the investigation but I observed that the procedure as prescribed under Section 9D of Central Excise Act has not been followed - Demand based on the documents, also has wrongly been confirmed by Commissioner (Appeals): CESTAT
- Appeal allowed: DELHI CESTAT
Rajasthan Guest House Vs CCGST & CE
ST - Appellant is registered under category of "Restaurant" and "Accommodation in Guest House" service and is engaged in running a small guest house - During scrutiny of records, it was noticed that appellant has short paid service tax and thus a SCN was issued proposing recovery of said amount along with interest and penalties under sections 77(1)(a), 77(2) and 78 of Finance Act, 1994 - Issue involved is no more res integra in view of decision of Tribunal in case of Bhoruka Aluminium Limited 2016-TIOL-3060-CESTAT-BANG - Appellant paid the amount of service tax before issuance of SCN, imposition of penalty under Section 78 of the Act is not justified and bad in law - Impugned orders are set aside: CESTAT
- Appeal allowed: KOLKATA CESTAT
2022-TIOL-945-CESTAT-MAD
CC Vs Salim Enterprises
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
