|
2023-TIOL-234-CESTAT-MUM
Muni Cargo Movers Pvt Ltd Vs CC
Cus - Assessee is in appeal challenging revocation of their 'customs broker' licence under regulation 22(7) and 20(1) of CHALR, 2004, and not once but twice - The genesis of any, or each such, proceedings under authority of extant Regulations is a distinct offence report and each consequential proceedings stands on its own with revocation erasing existence of licence along with jurisdiction of licencing authority over licence - There cannot be any justification of ignorance of lack of empowerment in Regulations and except by appellate sanction, for resumption of erased jurisdiction merely for meting another erasure - It certainly fails in appeal to logic and reason that a licence, issued under CHALR, 2004 that has been revoked by competent authority accompanied by forfeiture of security deposit, can, in same metaphorical breath, be revived by same authority for being subjected to revocation and forfeiture of deposit once again - Nor can it done the saving grace of rational purpose in such sequential detriment unless, at best, it had occurred to licensing authority that one of two erasures lacked sufficient foundation to sustain or, at worst, that 'customs brokers' are fair game for whimsical scattering of retribution - The patent nonapplication of mind in, thus, merging two separate, and independent, proceedings for reasons not adduced, and incomprehensible, should not pass unnoticed - In the circumstances in which appellant approached Tribunal on former occasion, viz., unanticipated revocation despite favourable findings in inquiry report, with no premonition of justification likely to be appropriated for extinguishment of licence, neither would it have been necessary to visit the statements of persons till responding to disagreement memo nor to impugn those statements in appeal before Tribunal then - Hence, such cavalier dismissal of request for cross-examination affects credibility of disagreement memo - In combining both proceedings and that too, of one which had been remanded by Tribunal, specifically directing that deficit, in not so usual circumstances of supplanting of inquiry findings, be bridged, with another that was on entirely different facts and imputation of breach of obligations, licencing authority has desecrated the sanctity of higher judicial authority, and compromised the impugned order thereby, warranting status quo ante for revisit of each, separately, for shedding taint of extraneous influence and prejudiced disposal - Tribunal do not propose to subject the merit of submissions to scrutiny and evaluation but, instead, set aside the impugned order and remand both proceedings back to licencing authority for fresh decisions while adjuring strict compliance with earlier order of Tribunal: CESTAT
- Matter remanded: MUMBAI CESTAT
2023-TIOL-233-CESTAT-AHM
Dipal Narendrabhai Shah Vs CCE & ST
CX - Appellants were allegedly involved in case of alleged clandestine removal made by M/s Pure Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. - The allegation of clandestine removal was mainly based on some diaries recovered from brokers and follow up action was taken upon various manufacturers mentioning in said diaries of brokers - Appellants were also involved in case of Shri Hari Steel Industries and also in case of M/s. Pure Alloys Ltd. - In said cases, Tribunal has taken a view that appellants are not liable for penalty - The common investigation was carried out in present case and cases of M/s. Pure Enterprises Pvt Ltd, M/s. Pure Alloys Ltd and Shri Hari Steel Industries - It is also observed that same statements, evidences such as broker's diaries were relied upon in all the cases, therefore, facts of all the three cases are absolutely identical - Since this Tribunal has already taken a view regarding penalty on appellant, the penalty in present case is also not sustainable - Therefore, following the aforesaid order, penalty imposed on appellant is set aside: CESTAT
- Appeals allowed: AHMEDABAD CESTAT
2023-TIOL-232-CESTAT-AHM
Ram Krishna Travels Pvt Ltd Vs CCE & ST
ST - Issue involved is, whether the activity undertaken by appellant would get covered under taxable service provided under "tour operator service" - Case of department is that as per the agreement with Indian Airlines, Jet Airways and Sahara Airlines appellant recovered actual ticket fares from customers but paid only the agreed price to Airlines, which was much less than the ticket cost - On perusal of disputed package features, it is clear that prima-facie appellant is not providing any consultancy in nature of planning, scheduling, organizing and arranging tour on behalf of particular tour for passengers - The Tribunal in case of Jet Airways India Ltd. has held that various tour packages provided by airlines to passengers i.e similar to package offered by appellant shall not cover under the preview of Tour Operator Service - However the Judgments of Jet Airways India Ltd. and Air India relied upon by appellant here were not relied upon by them before Commissioner - Therefore, said matter needs to be re-considered by Commissioner - As regards the limitation, same has also not been considered on its true facts and legal issue involved in present case - Appellant were paying service tax under category of "Air Travel Agent Service" and also filed ST-3 accordingly - Adjudicating authority have not properly examined the fact whether there is a suppression of facts or otherwise - Matter remanded to adjudicating authority: CESTAT
- Matter remanded: AHMEDABAD CESTAT |
|
