|
2023-TIOL-479-HC-DEL-CUS
CC Vs Sadanand Chaudhary
Cus - CBLR - Punitive measures imposed on the respondent's Customs Broker License under the Customs Broker Licensing Regulations, 2013 was reduced to forfeiture of the security deposit, therefore, Revenue is aggrieved by the CESTAT decision and is before the High Court. Held: It would be necessary for this Court to decide whether the delay in filing the appeal is required to be condoned - The present appeal was filed on 30.07.2019, which was after the delay of 307 days - Application seeking condonation of delay is bereft of any particulars - Apart from making a bald statement that the impugned order was misplaced because the office of the counsel of the appellant was under renovation and was found subsequently, no further details are provided - Court finds it difficult to accept the aforesaid explanation - The present appeal was listed on 25.04.2022, however, none appeared for the appellant on that date - The matter, as it stands today, is that no notice has been served on the respondent - Court finds no reason to condone the delay in filing the appeal or re-filing the same - Application rejected, appeal is dismissed: High Court [para 4, 10]
- Appeal dismissed: DELHI HIGH COURT
2023-TIOL-478-HC-KOL-CUS
Mumtaz Mehboob Munshi Vs CC
Cus - Intra court appeal filed against the order of the Single Judge - Petition was filed for return of the interest amount of Rs. 13,04,464/-, which according to the appellant has been illegally collected in the name of rent, insurance and GST charges which are not payable by the appellant - Single Judge bench noted that under the pre-amended Section 68, there was a provision that the goods which were warehoused may be cleared for home consumption after paying rent, however, the said provision was deleted by way of substitution of the said Section with effect from 14.05.2006 by Finance Act, 2016 - Writ court held that CWC was perfectly justified in demanding rent for the period prior to 14.05.2016 and the appellant is entitled for refund of the rent which has been collected for the period after 14.05.2016 - It is the case of the appellant that the amendment to Section 68 of the Act by which the term "rent" has been deleted by way of substitution is retrospective in nature and not prospective on and from 14.05.2016 when the substitution took place. Held: Appellant having accepted the order-in-original holding him guilty of violation of the terms and conditions of the advance license and the provisions of the Act and the goods having detained and kept in the custody of the warehouse from 2002, a vested right accrues in favour of CWC to recover the rent payable to them and, therefore, the demand made on the appellant by CWC, at least up to the date when the provision was amended is valid and proper and the said amount already paid by the appellant need not be returned or refunded to the appellant - Appeal is dismissed: High Court [para 14, 15]
- Appeal dismissed: CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
2023-TIOL-477-HC-KOL-ST
Millenium Construction Vs Disignated Committee Siliguri Commissionerate
ST - SVLDRS, 2019 - Delay in payment - When a cheque is deposited for transmission through NEFT or RTGS, it is the duty of the bank to immediately credit the money to the account of the RBI on verification of the account of the petitioners to ascertain as to whether the petitioners have requisite amount to honour the cheque - For the failure of the bank in sending the money by electronic transfer by RTGS on 30th June, 2020, the petitioners cannot be held liable - Writ petition is allowed - Respondents are directed to accept payment of tax of Rs.16,951/- dated 30th June, 2020 as per statement in SVLDRS-3 and issue discharge certificate in favour of the petitioners in Form SVLDRS-4 - Imposition and recovery of penalty of Rs.12,15,185/- is set aside - Respondents are directed to repay the said amount within four weeks: High Court
- Petition allowed: CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
2023-TIOL-311-CESTAT-CHD
CGST Vs Nachiketa Paper Ltd
CX - Assessee is engaged in manufacture of writing and printing paper - During Audit, it was observed that assessee has cleared 10.102 MT of Newprint-in-reels under chapter sub-heading No. 4801.00 at nil rate of duty to "Akhand Jyoti Masik" - Department found that "Akhand Jyoti" is a monthly publication, which is in bound form, containing mainly spiritual articles of Hindu religion and hence it does not qualify for definition of 'Newsprint' as envisaged under Notfn 23/98-CE, inasmuch as it is neither a daily/weekly publication nor in unbound form - Department came to conclusion that assessee has wrongly availed the benefit of said Notfn 23/98-CE without disclosing the material fact with intent to evade payment of central excise duty - Adjudicating Authority confirmed the demand alongwith interest and imposed equal amount of penalty and also held that 'Newsprint in Reel' is classifiable under Tariff heading No. 48.23, attracting duty @16% - Assessee filed the appeal before Commissioner (A) which was allowed in their favour - Revenue has challenged the decision of Commissioner (A) on the ground that 'Newsprint' in question can be classified under chapter heading No. 4823.90 only rather than chapter heading No. 4801.00 - The earlier decision of Commissioner (A) whereby he classified the impugned items under sub heading No. 4801.00 was upheld by Tribunal by dismissing the appeal of Revenue - For the subsequent period also, Additional Commissioner has given the benefit to assessee of Notfn 23/98-CE - Since, Revenue has not filed any appeal against decision of Tribunal whereby the benefit of notification was extended to assessee and keeping in view that for subsequent period, Additional Commissioner has also given the benefit of said notification to assessee, no merit found in appeal filed by Revenue, same is dismissed: CESTAT
- Appeal dismissed: CHANDIGARH CESTAT |
|
