|
2023-TIOL-514-HC-DEL-CUS
Mohammed Akmam Uddin Ahmed Vs CC & CE
Cus - Petitioners were travelling from Assam to Delhi, and they intended to depart for Bangkok on 20.09.2019 - The screening of the bags carried by them at IGI Airport revealed that they were carrying Agarwood Chips and Agarwood Oil [collectively valued at Rs. 6,36,00,000/- by the Customs Authorities] - Since the Petitioners failed to produce any valid document for the export of the said Agarwood Chips, the same were seized - SCN was issued u/s 124 for the confiscation and an o-in-o was passed on 13.07.2021 inter alia ordering for absolute confiscation of the seized goods and imposition of penalties of Rs.15 lakhs, Rs.75 lakhs and Rs.25 lakhs respectively on the three petitioners - Petitioners filed appeals along with an application for exemption/stay qua deposit of mandatory condition of pre-deposit of 7.5% of penalty - As the Superintendent (Appeals) returned all the three appeals for want of mandatory payment of pre-deposit u/s 129E, the present petition is filed.
Held: After passing of the Amendment Act on 06.08.2014, the amended Section 129E of the Act and also Section 35F of the CE Act shall be applicable in those cases where the Appeal has been filed after 06.08.2014 - However, the Coordinate Benches of this Court have exercised and, thus, preserved the power as available under Article 226 of Constitution of India, 1950 to either waive the pre-deposit condition or to grant the right to appeal subject to a part deposit or security;the power, albeit, has been exercised only in rare and exceptional cases - The penalty imposed on the Petitioners has been based on the price and valuation by the Respondents No.1 and 2 of the goods seized - The Petitioners have stated that they had purchased the goods seized from the local market of Hojai, Assam; that the market value of Agarwood Chips and Agarwood Oil ranges from Rs. 140/- to Rs. 1,200/- per Kg - The Petitioners have submitted that the international market value of Agarwood Chips and Agarwood Oil as per the Assam Agarwood Promotion Policy, 2020is high, however the goods seized were of the lowest grade purchased from the local market - SCN adopts the same "provisional international market value" as stated in the Panchnama/Seizure Memos - No clue is provided in the SCN as to the basis of valuation assigned to Agarwood Chips and Agarwood Oil - The SCN sets forth the valuation of the seized goods and the penalty imposed on each of the Petitioners, based on this "provisional international market value" - The OIO only reproduces the valuation as set forth in the SCN, the Panchnama and Seizure Memos and reiterates that the value of the Agarwood Chips is at the rate of Rs. 5,00,000/- per Kg, while the Agarwood Oil is valued at the rate of Rs. 8,00,000/- per Kg - Paragraph 4 of the Agarwood Policy sets forth that the market value of the Agarwood Chips ranges from Rs. 15,000/- to Rs. 2,50,000/- per Kg, and market value of Agarwood Oil ranges from Rs.43,000/- to Rs.10,32,000/- per Kg depending on the variety, in India and in the international market, the price of the top quality Agarwood Oil and wood can vary from a few dollars per Kg to over USD 30,000/-per Kg - Respondents have not placed on record any document in support of the value/price of the Agarwood Chips and Agarwood Oil which was "provisionally" valued at Rs. 5,00,000/- per Kg and Rs. 8,00,000/- per Kg respectively, to levy the penalty on the Petitioners - The valuation of the goods seized, is also not in terms of the prices as set forth in the Government of Assam's Agarwood Policy. No proper calculation has been made for the penalty levied - The penalty imposed on the Petitioners has been imposed based on a provisional valuation - The penalty imposed is, therefore, without any legal basis and cannot be sustained - Admittedly, the Petitioners are poor daily wage earners who are unable to make a challenge to the seizure and confiscation on account of the penalty imposed on them - Therefore, given the financial position and the wherewithal of the Petitioners, an opportunity needs to be given to them to contest the valuation so imposed by the Respondents, which, otherwise cannot be contested by them - Bench considers the case of the Petitioners to be an appropriate case to exercise its discretion in the matter concerning waiver of pre-deposit of penalty - Writ Petition is allowed - Respondent No. 1 is directed to decide the Appeals preferred by the Petitioners on merits, without insisting on the requirement of pre-deposit: High Court [para 12, 12.1, 15.3, 17, 18.3, 18.4, 20, 21]
- Petition allowed: DELHI HIGH COURT
2023-TIOL-326-CESTAT-MAD
Ruchi Soya Industries Ltd Vs Pr.CGST & CE
CX - Appeal filed against order passed by original authority who disallowed the availment of cenvat credit of service tax and ordered for recovery of same along with interest and imposed equal penalty under provisions of CCR, 2004 r/w Section 11AC of CEA, 1944 - Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) was initiated in respect of appellant under provisions of Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 by order of National Company Law Tribunal, Mumbai (NCLT) - The CIRP was completed on 06.09.2019 whereby NCLT vide its order dt. 24.07.2019 has approved Resolution Plan submitted by Consortium of Patanjali Ayurved Limited - Appellant has produced the order dt. 24.07.2019 passed by NCLT in matter of Ruchi Soya Industries Limited - In view of order passed by NCLT, appeal filed by appellant is disposed of accordingly: CESTAT
- Appeal disposed of: CHENNAI CESTAT
2023-TIOL-325-CESTAT-AHM
Hariom Earth Movers And Transport Vs CCE
ST - Assessee is in appeal against demand of interest on delayed payment of service tax - In all 36 cases, duty payment was delayed - In 17 of invoices issued by assessee during this period, the payment was received immediately - In balance 19 cases, the payment was received belatedly - For this late receipt of payment, assessee is seeking the benefit of Serial No. 2 of Notfn 13/2016 which has been denied by Commissioner (A) - No merit found in the argument given by Commissioner (A) - The Notification clearly stipulates two different situations and two different interest rates for each of that situation - Benefit of serial number 2 of Notfn in cases where payment was received late, cannot be denied to appellant - The original adjudicating authority can waive of the amount and issue final order: CESTAT
- Appeal allowed: AHMEDABAD CESTAT |
|
