|
2023-TIOL-193-HC-AHM-CX
AIA Engineering Ltd Vs UoI
CX - Refund of Krishi Kalyan Cess - Grievance on the part of the petitioner is of the Tribunal not deciding the matter itself and remanding it to the Assessing Officer.
Held: Question involved is as to whether the present petitioner is entitled for the refund of accumulated unutilized Cenvat Credit of the KKC lying in the Cenvat Account of the petitioner as on 30.06.2018 due to the reason or implementation of the GST from 01.07.2017 - The chief reason for remanding the matter for adjudicating it de novo by the adjudicating authority is the pendency of the matter in case of M/s. Bombay Dyeing and Manufacturing Company Limited before the Apex Court - If the matter is still pending before the Apex Court, nobody can make a guess as to in what way it is going to result - The least the Tribunal could have done was of deciding the matter on merit as per the prevalent law or to keep the matter back - However, it has chosen to remand the matter to the adjudicating authority which is impermissible - Approach of the Tribunal is to abdicate its duty of deciding the matter on the merits or to retain the matter till the outcome of the pending matter before the Apex Court - Since this is not permissible, Bench deems it appropriate that the Tribunal, which is otherwise required to decide the matter on merit, shall decide the same keeping all contentions raised by both the sides before this Court and before the Tribunal open for them to agitate - Petition disposed of: High Court [para 5, 6, 8]
- Petition disposed of: GUJARAT HIGH COURT
2023-TIOL-192-HC-AHM-CUS
Match Graphics Pvt Ltd Vs UoI
Cus - Respondent no.3 detained the raw materials [uncoated printing paper, decor paper, base paper and decor base paper] on the grounds of misdeclaration of producer's source and lower payment of anti-dumping duty for import from other producers from China - Respondent no. 2 vide its communication dated 27.07.2022 approved the request of the petitioner for provisional release of the raw materials subject to the condition of the petitioner executing a bond of Rs.24,41,31,320/- under Section 110A of the Customs Act along with an undertaking to pay the penalty and interest, which may arise in the future and furnish a Bank Guarantee or a cash deposit of Rs. 11,00,00,000/- - Petitioner on 05.08.2022 intimated the respondent no. 3 of payment of Rs. 25,00,000/- made to the Commissioner of Customs, Pipavav towards anti-dumping duty on the ground of assurance for co-operation of ongoing investigation - Respondent no.3 was intimated on 31.08.2022 by the petitioner regarding the further payment of Rs.50,00,000/- done to the Commissioner of Customs, Pipavav for assurance of co-operation in the ongoing investigation - Petitioner had not received any reply on the request made from the respondent no. 2 causing financial hardship since the goods were seized since 18.06.2022 and, therefore, the petition is preferred seeking various reliefs.
Held: In the present case, the adjudicating authority has merely communicated the conditions for the provisional release without considering any features of quasi-judicial order - Moreover, the extension of time period has been provided by the Deputy Commissioner and hence, it is without the authority of law as it is the discretion of Commissioner of Customs to make an extension of period under Section 110A of the Customs Act - Non-speaking orders without any reasons for extension of time is also another aspect which is a must to take note of - Petitioner is hereby directed to furnish the bond of entire amount of goods of Rs. 25,00,00,000/- before the authority and shall also disclose properties of company and its directors before this Court on oath and also give an undertaking of not to part with the same till this inquiry is completed in above mentioned four weeks' period - The respondent no.4 is directed to release the goods in and the operation of seizure order passed by the respondent no.3 under Section 110 of Customs Act is hereby quashed and set aside - Respondent authority shall release the goods as soon as the petitioner furnish bond of Rs. 25,00,00,000/-: High Court [para 5.7, 102, 10.3]
- Petition disposed of: GUJARAT HIGH COURT
2023-TIOL-191-HC-AHM-CUS
Shivtex Industries Pvt Ltd Vs UoI
Cus - It is alleged that the imported goods were mis-declared as GTL Light Paraffin under Tariff Item 2710 1990 instead of declaring the correct description of Light Diesel Oil classifiable under Tariff Item No.2710 1943 confirming to IS Specification 15770:2008. It was also alleged that as per Para 2.20 of the Foreign Trade Policy 2015-2020 such goods can be imported only by State Trading Enterprise (STE) like HPCL, BPCL or IBP - The test report of CECL, Vadodara being in complete contradiction to the earlier report of the CRCL, Kandla which confirmed the same to be not the Light Diesel Oil - A request was made for vacating the seizure memo dated 15.11.2021 and for release but since there was no response, the present petition.
Held: Prima facie, the version put forth by the petitioner of commingling of the cargo shall need to be accepted - More than that, the reports given by the Central Revenue Laboratory, New Delhi, without semblance of doubt, opines on the sample being the GTL Light Paraffin and not the Diesel Oil nor the Automotive Diesel Oil nor Light Diesel Oil - That being the case, the clearance of the balance quantity of 1360 MTs and as per the directions issued by this Court in the case of M/s. Alka Chemical Private Limited where also the issue was whether the sample was Light Diesel Oil or not - Bench deems it appropriate to follow the same by permitting the release of the seized quantity of goods 1360 MTs GTL Light Paraffin stored in Tank Nos.57, 58 and 117 and 1366.83 MTs GTL Light Paraffin stored in Tank Nos.57, 58 with respondent No.4 - This balance quantity of goods being 1360 MTs and 1366.83 MTs of GTL Light Paraffin are released on the writ applicant furnishing an appropriate undertaking to the Commissioner, Customs to the effect that the petitioner will cooperate with the inquiry - This decision in no manner will curtail the rights of the respondent in carrying out the inquiry in relation to the import goods - With regard to the storage charges, the representation is permitted to be made to the respondent No.4, which shall consider the same bearing in mind overall circumstances - Request on the part of the respondent to insist on the bank guarantee is not to be acceded to - Petition is disposed of: High Court [para 12, 13, 14]
- Petition disposed of: GUJARAT HIGH COURT |
|
