|
2022-TIOL-1567-HC-DEL-CUS
Singtel Global India Pvt Ltd Vs UoI
Cus - The issue relates to petitioner's claims for unutilised input tax credit relating to three separate periods - Assistant Commissioner rejected the petitioner's claim by questioning the decision of Commissioner (A) to allow petitioner's appeal and reject the Revenue's appeals - Impugned order has been passed in complete disregard of judicial discipline - It is, ex facie, apparent that Assistant Commissioner has attempted to overreach the orders passed by superior authority - Since the revenue was seeking to defend impugned order, Court had called upon Senior Standing Counsel, Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs (CBIC), to also file written submissions even though he was not appearing in present petition - He has fairly submitted that impugned order, which proceeds on the basis that petitioner is a provider of intermediary services, is incorrect and it is not open for Revenue to take this stand - Revenue would necessarily have to wait for outcome of appeals preferred by CESTAT - Impugned order is set aside - Revenue is directed to process the petitioner's application within a period of four weeks - The revenue shall also consider the petitioner's entitlement to interest considering the delay in processing its application: HC
- Writ petition disposed of: DELHI HIGH COURT
2022-TIOL-1566-HC-MUM-CUS
Naresh B Birwadkar Vs UoI
Cus - The Petitioner had challenged the impugned order - These proceedings in which concurrent finding is rendered against Petitioner arose from a seizure of assorted diamond studded jewellery pursuant to an action under Section 111(l) of Customs Act, 1962 - The fact that Petitioner arrived in India from South Africa, and was intercepted and found in possession of jewellery in contravention of provisions of the Act, has been established - Court is not shown any statutory provision that mandates the Respondent Custom Authorities that if they call for Trade Panel's Report, they are bound by same and basic principle of transactional value no longer applies - Even otherwise, if report of Trade Panel is to be made the foundation of, same is not found reliable - The Commissioner has observed that from Trade Panel's Report, it is unclear whether they had valued the goods for import or export purposes, and it is not clear whether these are domestic prices or goods prevailing in South Africa - The Commissioner observed that report lacks material and does not meet requirements for giving status of reliable evidence having a probative value - Therefore, Authorities, as a matter of fact, have found that the report is not satisfactory - Court cannot direct the Respondent to accept the report when it was found to be unreliable - The Authorities have gone by the basic criteria of valuing goods in question by considering the transactional value based on invoices found in possession of Petitioner himself - Despite the same, Authorities at each stage have taken a lenient view and have reduced redemption and personal fines: HC
- Writ petition dismissed: BOMBAY HIGH COURT
2022-TIOL-1565-HC-MAD-CUS
N R Colours Ltd Vs CC
Cus - Petitioner has challenged the order rejecting their appeal on the ground that the same is barred by limitation - Petitioner submits that the O-in-O is dated 19.07.2012, however, it is the case of the petitioner that the entity, as against which the order had been passed, had been amalgamated with the petitioner and hence, the assessee, N.R.Chemicals Private Limited, ceased to exist on and from 06.05.2011; that the order has been served in the name of the erstwhile entity, to its address - Case of the petitioner to the effect that order had come to its notice only when a detention notice had been issued on 12.03.2019 and furthermore, on 19.06.2019, upon request made by the petitioner, the Deputy Commissioner of Customs has supplied a copy of the order-in-original paving the way for the filing of appeal before the first Appellate Authority. Held : Contention of the petitioner is acceptable - Bench is of the considered view that the intervening period is liable to be eschewed in the computation of statutory limitation for filing of appeal - Since the order has been received by the petitioner on 19.06.2019 and the appeal has been filed on 20.06.2019, there is no delay - Impugned order passed by the 2nd respondent on 05.08.2020 is set aside and the appeal is restored to the file of the 2nd respondent to be heard on merits and in accordance with law - Petitioner will appear before the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals)/R2 on Friday, the 2nd of December, 2022 at 10.30 a.m. and the appeal shall be disposed within a period of four weeks - Petition disposed of: High Court [para 6, 7, 8, 10]
- Petition disposed of: MADRAS HIGH COURT
2022-TIOL-1564-HC-DEL-CUS
D M South India Hospitality Pvt Ltd Vs UoI
Cus - It is the grievance of the Petitioner that recently, letters have been issued by Department of Revenue in violation of this Court's orders, invoking bank guarantee submitted by Petitioner without considering the Petitioner's representation - Further, it is the case of petitioner that two weeks' advance notice, in terms of order, has not been given to invoke bank guarantee - Considering the fact that the enforcement of impugned letters has already been put in abeyance by Customs Authorities after the orders of this Court was brought to their notice, and the submissions made by parties today, it is directed that decision shall be taken in said representation by 31st January, 2023 - In the meantime, bank guarantee/s submitted by Petitioner shall not be invoked without two weeks' advance notice given to Petitioner on e-mail address - If petitioner redeems any further EPCGs in interregnum, same shall be also brought to the notice of DGFT - If representation of petitioner is rejected, petitioner would be given four weeks time to avail of its remedies in accordance with law and for the said four week period, the Bank guarantees shall not be invoked: HC
- Writ petition disposed of: DELHI HIGH COURT
2022-TIOL-1159-CESTAT-MUM
Modern Trading And Logistics LLP Vs CC
Cus - The only issue arises is the mandate to produce certificate insisted upon as condition for provisional release from among the prescriptions in licencing notes pertaining to imported vehicles - The Tribunal, in Excellent Betelnut Products Pvt Ltd has held that the powers of Commissioner of Customs under section 110A of Customs Act, 1962 cannot be interfered with by any circular or instructions - In impugned order, it has been admitted that provisional release has been subject to conditions stipulated in Circular No. 35/2017-Cus which traverse beyond empowerment in section 110A of Customs Act, 1962 - It is for the owner of the vehicle to be compliant with law upon provisional release - Furthermore, it is on record that vehicle has already been registered with competent authority under Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 - The policy condition is not one incorporated merely for the sake of regulating imports and exports of country but to ensure that imported goods are compliant with regulatory measures, other than that relating to imports and exports, under municipal laws of country - As impugned vehicle has already been registered with authorities concerned, it would appear that vehicle complies with all the stipulations for operation and running on Indian roads - Accordingly, inclusion of this condition as necessary for provisional release is redundant and superfluous and Tribunal allows this appeal by expunging said condition as requirement of provisional release: CESTAT
- Appeal allowed: MUMBAI CESTAT
2022-TIOL-1158-CESTAT-AHM
Rajendra Kumar Choudhary Vs CCE & ST
CX - Appellant is Director of M/s Bilpower Limited - There is a case against Company that they have availed fraudulent Cenvat Credit amounting to more than Rs. 18 Crore without receipt of inputs and also evaded Central Excise Duty of Rs. 94,99,291/- on clandestine removal of goods - As regard the demand of fraudulent Cenvat Credit of Rs. 18 Crores and evasion of Excise Duty for Rs. 94,99,291/-, same stand confirmed as impugned order is in operation - As regard the appellant's case, appellant being a Director of Company involved in entire Modus Operandi of fraudulent availment of credit and evasion of Excise Duty on clandestine removal of finished goods - Without knowledge of director, it could not have been possible to make such a huge evasion of duty - Therefore, involvement of director is clearly established - Appellant was directly involved in evasion of huge amount of excise duty and fraudulent availment of Cenvat Credit - Therefore, no infirmity found in finding given by Adjudicating Authority - Accordingly, penalty imposed upon appellant is upheld: CESTAT
- Appeal dismissed: AHMEDABAD CESTAT
2022-TIOL-1157-CESTAT-AHM
Harish And Associates Vs CCE & ST
ST - Assessee is in appeal against demand of service tax, interest and imposition of penalties - They had paid an amount of Rs. 1 Lac vide challan and demand SCN was issued after adjusting Rs. 1 Lac already deposited by them - SCN nowhere alleges suppression or misdeclaration on the part of assessee and therefore, there cannot be any ground for invocation of extended period of limitation - Demand for extended period of limitation cannot be sustained - Assessee is not registered under section 23 of Architect Act, 1972 - Revenue had argued that appellant as commercial concern is engaged in providing services in nature of designing, planning, Architecture and site supervision - Without proper registration no one can provide services in field of Architecture - Thus, the allegation that assessee is providing services of Architect is unsubstantiated - Moreover, in statement of Shri Harish R Patel, Proprietor of assessee firm has also stated that they were giving designing, planning, Architecture and site Supervision of construction work which by no means amounts to provision of Architect Service - No merit found in impugned order, demand is set aside: CESTAT
- Appeal allowed: AHMEDABAD CESTAT |
|
