|
2023-TIOL-128-CESTAT-AHM
Ashik Woolen Mill Ltd Vs CCE & ST
CX - Appeals has been filed by M/s Ashik Woollen Mills Ltd and Rameshchandra Shah against demand of central excise duty & imposition of penalty - The issue regarding demand of duty has been decided by earlier order of Tribunal - On the issue that was decided by impugned order was regarding quantification of penalties - Period involved is both before and after introduction of section 11AC of Central Excise Act, 1944 in statute book - No error found in imposition of composite penalty under Rule 173Q ibid read with Section 11AC ibid as all the charges have been confirmed and charges pertains to both the period prior to introduction of Section 11AC ibid and thereafter - Therefore, penalty under both the provision could have been rightly imposed - No merit found in appeals filed by appellant: CESTAT
- Appeals dismissed: AHMEDABAD CESTAT
2023-TIOL-127-CESTAT-MUM
Suryabhan Eknath Dhurpate Vs CC
Cus - Appeal filed against impugned order passed by Commissioner (A) - Intelligence gathered by DRI indicated that M/s Aditya, M/s Veeaar, M/s Vihaan, M/s Vedant and M/s Simplex had fraudulently availed Special Focus Market Scheme (SFMS) benefits, by producing forged House BL and landing certificate, wherein consignee country was deliberately mis-declared by them for purpose of availing undue benefit under SFMS - It was gathered that Shri Ramesh Singh, who is one of proprietors/Directors in all the said five exporting firms looks after all the activities had adopted this modus operandi mainly in respect of purported exports to Land Locked countries le CIS countries namely Armenia, Azerbaijan, Kazakhstan and Tajikistan wherein nearest port is Bandar Abbas (Iran) - However, goods had never travelled to destination shown on export documents - Appellant has filed this appeal against penalty imposed on him under Section 114(iii) and under Section 114AA of Customs Act, 1962 - In a similar case where exporter along with appellant approached Settlement Commission under Special Focus Market Scheme, Settlement Commission has penalized the appellant with penalty of Rs.50,000/- only on payment of entire duty to the Revenue - In present case also exporter has made the payment of Rs.51,42,866/- towards total demand as he needed some more time to approach Settlement Commission to pay the remaining amount - Undisputedly there is no denial vis-à-vis the role of appellant in acts undertaken leading to loss of revenue - However, taking note of fact that appellant is not the actual beneficiary but is only freight forwarder arranging for container, taking the consignment to shipping lines as per directions of Shri Ramesh Singh, penalty imposed on appellant is excessive - Accordingly, penalties are reduced to Rs. 2.5 lakhs under Section 114(iii) and Rs. 2.5 lakhs under Section 114AA of Customs Act, 1962 : CESTAT
- Appeal partly allowed: MUMBAI CESTAT
2023-TIOL-126-CESTAT-DEL
Chhaya Mahalley Vs CC
ST - Issue involved is as to whether appellant had provided "cargo handling service" for the period 01.06.2007 and "mining service" for the period 01.06.2007 or had provided "transport of goods by road" service - The issue as to was whether coal transported from pitheads of mines to railway sidings would fall within taxable service defined under section 65(105)(zzzy) of Finance Act, 1994 was examined by Supreme Court in Singh Transporters 2017-TIOL-249-SC-ST wherein it is held that activity would appropriately be classified under head "transport of goods by road" service and the activity does not involve any taxable service in relation to "mining of mineral" as contemplated under section 65(105)(zzzy) of Finance Act - Supreme Court also held that definition of "mines" has no apparent nexus with activity undertaken under service rendered - It would be seen that Supreme Court categorically held that the activity undertaken by appellant would fall under head "transportation of goods by road" service - Commissioner (A) was, therefore, not justified in holding that appellant had undertaken the activity of mining service w.e.f. 01.06.2007 - The appellant had, therefore, not provided "cargo handling" service prior to 01.06.2007 under section 65(23) of Finance Act and "mining" service w.e.f. 01.06.2007 - The order passed by Commissioner (A), therefore, cannot be sustained: CESTAT
- Appeal allowed: DELHI CESTAT |
|
