|
2023-TIOL-175-HC-DEL-CUS
Green View Logistics Vs CC
Cus - Customs Broker License of the appellant was revoked and his security deposit was forfeited - Additionally, the appellant was mulcted with a penalty of Rs. 50,000/- - Since their appeal was not successful before the Tribunal, the present appeal u/s 130 of the Act - According to the respondent, the appellant is guilty of misconduct as he had permitted misdeclaration of goods by the exporter (M/s Balaji International) and attempted to facilitate export of goods otherwise restricted at the material time. Held: Principal allegation against the appellant is that he had not exercised due diligence and facilitated filing of the Shipping Bills in relation to 'Glucose Test Strips' in classifying them as under Tariff Item 9027 90 90 of Customs Tariff Act, 1975 instead of under Heading 38.22 ibid - It is also relevant to refer to the notification dated 04.04.2022, which has restricted the export of diagnostic kits - It is clear that the 'Glucose Test Strips' do not fall within the classification of Tariff Item 9027 90 90 ibid - The said classification only relates to microtones, parts and accessories that are not classified under Tariff Item 9027 90 10 or 9027 90 20 ibid - Thus, 'the Glucose Test Strips' would clearly fall within the restricted items under the Notification No. 59/2015-20, dated 04.04.2020 - It is not disputed that the consignment was finally cleared - It is apparent that the appellant had been remiss, however, the appellant's candid admission must also be read along with his statement that he was not aware that the goods in question contained reagents - Regulation 10(e) relates to the failure to impart correct information to the client - In the present case, the exporter was fully aware of the issue regarding classification of the goods in question and had also corresponded to the department in this regard - In this case, the exporter was fully aware of the issue regarding classification and, the exporter had also corresponded with the department and had asserted that the goods in question were not restricted - In the given facts, any error on the part of the appellant to inform the exporter regarding the classification of the goods cannot be considered as sufficiently grave so as to forfeit the appellant's license - Tribunal had not examined the material facts of the present case to ascertain whether an action under Regulation 14 of the Customs Brokers Licensing Regulations, 2018 was justified - In view of the above, the impugned order as well as the order dated 11.06.2021 passed by the Commissioner of Customs to the extent that it revokes the appellant's license and forfeits the security deposit is set aside - Appeal partly allowed: High Court [para 15, 16, 17, 18, 22, 24, 27, 30, 31, 32]
- Appeal partly allowed: DELHI HIGH COURT
2023-TIOL-174-HC-DEL-CUS
Discite Pvt Ltd Vs Addl. DGFT
Cus - Petitioner impugns the action of respondents suspending the petitioner's Importer Exporter Code - Petitioner states that DGFT had not issued any show cause notice as required under Section 8 of the FTDR Act; that it had not communicated any grounds for proposing to suspend the petitioner's IEC; that the DGFT has also not passed any speaking order for suspending the IEC - In its counter-affidavit, DGFT submits that it has issued a show cause notice dated 11.05.2022 and had also issued a reminder dated 06.06.2022, giving full opportunity to the petitioner to show cause as to why its IEC not be cancelled; that the petitioner's IEC was suspended by an order dated 31.08.2022. Held : A plain reading of the notice dated 11.05.2022 indicates that it does not conform to the requirement of Section 8 of the FTDR Act - First of all, the said notice does not set out the grounds on which any action is proposed and secondly, the only action proposed in the said show cause notice is placing the IEC "under DEL" - The order dated 31.08.2022 is also a non-speaking order as it does not indicate any ground for suspending the petitioner's IEC; it merely mentions that there is a violation of Section 8 of the FTDR Act - Merit in the contention that the petitioner's IEC has been suspended without following the procedure as required under Section 8 of the FTDR Act - Court considers it apposite to set aside the order dated 31.08.2022 and direct that the petitioner's IEC be restored forthwith - The petitioner shall treat the show cause notice dated 15.11.2022 as also a show cause notice under Section 8 of the FTDR Act and respond to the same within two weeks and order to be passed within four weeks - Petition allowed: High Court [para 8, 9, 10, 14, 15, 16]
- Petition allowed: DELHI HIGH COURT
2023-TIOL-106-CESTAT-MUM
WNS Global Services Pvt Ltd Vs CCT
ST - Originally the appellant, a SEZ Unit providing output service namely 'Business Auxillary Service' for exporting outside India, filed the refund claim for period April, 2017 to June, 2017 - Same was partly rejected - Although Tribunal have gone through same evidence which has been annexed alongwith appeal but it cannot be verified at this stage - If those were placed on record before authorities below then said authorities were under obligation to give finding on said plea/evidence, one way or the other, but they failed to do so - Since the major portion of rejected claim pertains to this head only therefore, without going into the merits of appeal, Tribunal is inclined to remand the matter back to Adjudicating Authority to decide the issue afresh confining to refund claimed in this appeal and also to record a finding about admissibility or otherwise of evidence placed on record herein by appellant alongwith another issue of event management service and sponsorship service involving the amount of Rs. 19035/-, as for the third issue the appellant submits that he is not contesting the amount of Rs. 1450/- which pertains to one invoice which is rejected as time barred by first Appellate Authority - Appellant is directed to produce all evidences before Adjudicating Authority in support of their claim and said Authority is also directed to decide the issues after giving proper opportunity to appellant: CESTAT
- Matter remanded: MUMBAI CESTAT
2023-TIOL-105-CESTAT-MUM
Coats And Packs Vs CCGST
CX - Department has issued SCNs seeking recovery of inadmissible Cenvat Credit under Rule 14 of CCR, 2004 read with provisions of Section 11A(4) of Central Excise Act, 1944 - Said SCNs were adjudicated upon by Original Authority sanctioning the refund in favour of appellant - Issue pertains to refund of Cenvat Credit by appellant as a manufacturer of excisable goods - The relevant provisions contained in Section 35A ibid should be applicable for filing the appeal before Commissioner (A) - However, Revenue has filed the appeal under Section 84 of Finance Act, 1994 and the said appeal was entertained and disposed of by Commissioner (A) under such statutory provisions - Since, impugned order was passed under a statute which does not deal with subject issue, submissions made by appellant merit consideration for the purpose of maintainability of such appeals by Commissioner (A) - Tribunal in the case of Guardian Plasticote Ltd. 2010-TIOL-1038-CESTAT-AHM has held that appeal filed under Service Tax statute in respect of Central Excise matter is not maintainable and accordingly, rejected the appeal filed by Commissioner of Central Excise - Since, the Co-ordinate Bench of Tribunal has taken a view that appeal under the ground of jurisdiction is an important aspect for consideration, contrary stand cannot be taken in deciding the present issue differently - Therefore, appeal filed by appellant is allowed on limited ground of jurisdiction only: CESTAT
- Appeal allowed: MUMBAI CESTAT
2023-TIOL-104-CESTAT-CHD
Maruti Suzuki India Ltd Vs CCE & ST
CX - Commissioner (A) has dismissed the appeal of appellant solely on the ground that demand on a similar issue in appellant's own case was confirmed against appellant by Principal Bench of Tribunal in 2014-TIOL-3012-CESTAT-DEL - Further, Commissioner (A) has failed to consider subsequent rectification order passed by Tribunal, allowing the rectification of mistake by recalling order dated 22.12.2014 - Vide order dated 09.08.2017, appeal filed by Department has been dismissed - For the previous period before amendment sought in definition of 'input service', Commissioner (A) has himself allowed the cenvat credit on 'Business Auxiliary Service' and various orders are on record - Once the order of Commissioner (A) has attained finality and department has not filed any appeal then now the department is not permitted to take a contrary stand as held in case of Rosmerta Technologies 2020-TIOL-916-CESTAT-CHD - Further, it is found on analysis of definition of 'input service' as provided in Rule 2(l) of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 that computer networking is specifically included in 'includes clause' of definition of input services - Computer now a days is required in all areas starting from procurement of material, store accounting, production, sales, accounts and administration - Impugned order is not sustainable in law and therefore, same is set-aside: CESTAT
- Appeal allowed: CHANDIGARH CESTAT |
|
