2023-TIOL-493-HC-DEL-ST
Matrix Forex Services Pvt Ltd Vs UoI
ST - Petitioner impugns letters dated 29.07.2019 and 30.07.2019 issued by respondent no. 3 calling upon the petitioner to make service tax payments along with applicable interest and penalty for the period of Financial Years 2014-15 to 2017-18 (April-June) - Petitioner also impugns the SCN dated 18.10.2019 proposing imposition of the aforesaid levies - It is the contention of the petitioner that no fresh proceedings for assessment or recovery of service tax under Chapter-V of the Finance Act are maintainable against the petitioner because Chapter-V of the Finance Act stands omitted.
Held: From a plain reading of Section 174(2) of the CGST Act, it is apparent that the amendment to the Finance Act by omission of Chapter-V of the Finance Act would not affect the operation of the amended Act (Finance Act) and it would also not affect any obligation or liability 'accrued' or 'incurred' under the Finance Act - Clause (d) of Section 174(2) of the CGST Act also expressly provides that the amendment to the Finance Act would not affect any duty, tax, surcharge, fine, penalty or interest as 'due or may become due' under the amended Act - Thus, on a plain reading of Section 174 of the CGST Act, it is clear that the obligation of the petitioner to pay the service tax due in respect of the Financial Years 2014-15 to 2017-18 (April - June) is not affected in any manner by the omission of Chapter-V of the Finance Act by enactment of Section 173 of the CGST Act - Any legal proceeding for enforcement of a right would be unaffected by the repeal of the statute - However, any hope or expectation of acquiring a right under a repealed provision may be affected - Petition dismissed: High Court [para 5, 6, 15, 17]
- Petition dismissed: DELHI HIGH COURT
2023-TIOL-492-HC-DEL-CUS
Rangoli International Pvt Ltd Vs UoI
Cus - Petitioner impugns an order passed by the Additional Secretary to the GoI whereby the petitioner's revision application was rejected - Petitioner is essentially aggrieved by the demand for refund of duty drawback amounting to Rs. 1,74,11,800/- availed by the petitioner for exports during the period 09.05.2012 to 01.07.2013 along with interest - Admittedly, the petitioner did not receive foreign exchange remittance against some of the said bills - Petitioner assails the impugned order as being passed in violation of the principles of natural justice; that there was no requirement to refund the duty drawback in terms of the RBI Circular [dated 12.03.2013 [RBI AP (DIR Series) Circular No.88]] as duty drawback is not an export incentive.
Held: RBI Circular dated 12.03.2013 relied upon by the petitioner is of no relevance to the controversy - It is material to note that the said Circular was issued under Section 10(4) and 11(1) of the Foreign Exchange Management Act, 1999 and did not affect the obligations under any other enactment - It is plainly erroneous to contend that the second proviso to Section 75 of the Customs Act is inapplicable in cases where write off is permissible under FEMA - It is not disputed that the petitioner has not received compensation from the ECGC - Thus, Rule 16A(5) of the Drawback Rules is not applicable - Petition is unmerited and, accordingly, dismissed: High Court [para 10, 12, 14, 15]
- Petition dismissed: DELHI HIGH COURT
2023-TIOL-491-HC-AHM-CUS
Shree Renuka Sugars Ltd Vs UoI
Cus - Petitioner was sanctioned and paid under the said Remission of Duties and Taxes on Exported Products Scheme for exports of sugar made from 1.6.2022 to 30.11.2022 - It appears that certain letters came to be issued by the officers of Kandla customs and Mundra customs providing that the export of sugar made from 1.6.2022 would be treated as restricted export and that the RoDTEP benefit would not be admissible to the goods where the export was restricted under the foreign trade policy - Petitioner is seeking protection against the coercive recovery and further seeking the entitlement to the export benefit under the RoDTEP Scheme.
Held : Court is of the view that the following directions would serve the ends of justice viz. Petitioner shall be entitled to claim the RoDTEP Scheme benefit in respect of the exports of white refined sugar at the rate permissible - Even if such benefit is not claimed or mentioned in the shipping bills, the petitioner is permitted to make necessary application seeking such benefit in respect of the consignments concerned - Passage of time in making such applications which would occur as amount would not be mentioned in the shipping bills, would not render the claim of the petitioner time barred - Non-mentioning of the claim of the benefit in the shipping bill by the petitioner shall also not be treated as waiver on part of the petitioner - Petition disposed of: High Court [para 5, 7]
- Petition disposed of: GUJARAT HIGH COURT 2023-TIOL-318-CESTAT-MAD
DCM Hyundai Ltd Vs CGST & CE
CX - The issue arises is, whether tipper bodies cleared by appellant into DTA, who is 100% EOU, are eligible for benefit of concessional rate of duty under Notfn 23/2003 CE - Appellant has been permitted to clear/sell containers of iron/steel/aluminum/stainless steel - The allegation of Department is that appellant have exported only Marine Freight Containers and Special Purpose Containers - The tipper body and Steel Structures cleared by them are not similar to goods exported as required under provisions of para 6.8 of Foreign Trade Policy - It can be seen that open top containers exported by appellant is similar to the tipper body used for transportation - It is not necessary that goods cleared into DTA have to be identical to the goods exported by EOU - Further, permission has been granted by MEPZ to clear containers which are similar - Therefore, denial of benefit of notification is not justified - Impugned order demanding differential duty is set aside: CESTAT
- Appeal allowed: CHENNAI CESTAT |
