News Update

PM-STIAC discusses accelerating Industry-Academia Partnership for Research and InnovationIndia, Singapore hold dialogue over cyber policy44 bids received under 10th Round of Commercial Coal Mine AuctionsCops arrest former Dy PM of Nepal in cooperative fraud casePuri highlights India's Petrochemical potential at India Chem 2024UN reports record high cocaine production in ColombiaMinister unveils 'Aviation Park' showcasing India's Aviation HeritageED finds PFI wanted to start Islamic movement in IndiaBlocking Credit - Rule 86ASEBI says investors can use 3-in-1 accounts to apply online for securitiesI-T- Penalty u/s 271(1)(b) need not be imposed when assessee moved an adjournment application & later complied with notice u/s 142(1): ITAT4 Kanwariyas killed as vehicle runs over them in Banka, BiharI-T- Accounting principles do not prescribe maintaining of a day-to-day stock register, and the books of accounts cannot be rejected on this basis alone: ITATUN food looted and diverted to army in EthiopiaCus - Alleged breach of conditions for operating public bonded warehouse; CESTAT rightly rejected allegations, having found no evidence of any such breach: HCUS budget deficit surges beyond USD 1.8 trillionST - Onus for proving admissibility of Cenvat Credit rests with service provider under Rule 9(6) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004: CESTATIf China goes into Taiwan, Trump promises to impose additional tariffsRussians love Indian films; Putin lauds BollywoodCus - Classification of goods is to be determined in accordance with Customs Tariff Act & General Interpretative Rules; Country-of-Origin Certificate may offer some guidance, but cannot solely dictate classification: CESTATCus - Benefit of such Country-of-Origin certificates cannot be denied if all relevant conditions are met under the applicable Customs Tariff rules: CESTATCuban power grid collapses; Country plunges into darknessCus - As per trite law, merely claiming a classification or exemption does not constitute mis-declaration or suppression - any misclassification does not equate to willful intent to evade duty: CESTATKarnataka mulling over 2% fee on aggregator platforms to bankroll gig worker welfare fundCus - Extended limitation cannot be invoked in case of assessee who is a regular importer with a consistent classification approach: CESTAT
 
Cus - Revenue has retained pre-deposit for more than 2 years for no reason - as no appeal was filed against stay, therefore, it is clear case of harassment - Commissioner, JNCH, to dispose claim within one month: CESTAT

By TIOL News Service

MUMBAI, FEB 11, 2015: IN the matter of the appeal filed by the appellants viz. CHA & exporter, the CESTAT had passed the following order -

Cus - Penalty - consignment loaded on the vessel by shipping line without obtaining Let Export Order - after entering the port area, the CHA and exporter have no control over the goods - hence they are not liable to be penalized u/s 114(iii) of Customs Act, 1962 - penalty dropped - as exporter has not violated the provisions of Customs Act, goods not liable for confiscation - redemption fine waived - however, since shipping line has violated the provisions of s.40 of the Customs Act, 1962 they are liable to be penalized - in view of Bombay HC decision in CSAV Group Agencies - 2009-TIOL-685-HC-MUM-CUS penalty reduced to 40% - Appeals disposed of: CESTAT [paras 6 & 7]

This order was passed on 07.01.2013 and we had reported the same as - 2013-TIOL-678-CESTAT-MUM .

Pursuant to the order passed in their favour the aforementioned appellants sought a refund of the pre-deposit amount of Rs.1 lakh deposited by them. This, they did by addressing a letter dated 06/05/2013 to the Commissioner of Customs (Export), JNCH, NhavaSheva.

And the addressee is a very busy man, meaning to say that even after two years of passing of the order by the CESTAT the appellants' are yet to get their monies back.

Left with no option, they have filed Miscellaneous applications under rule 41 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982 and requested the CESTAT to issue directions to the authorities concerned so that their wait for refund does not extend to eternity.

On the day of hearing, none represented the appellants.

The AR submitted that the matter of refund is under process and the refund application will be disposed of within 3 weeks time.

On this assurance, the Bench noted -

“5. It is observed that Revenue has retained the pre-deposit amount for more than 2 years after passing of the final order of this Tribunal for no reason. The Revenue neither filed an appeal against this Tribunal order nor obtained any stay, therefore, it is clear case of harassment to the assessee that the legitimate claim of the applicant has not been granted. Therefore, the Commissioner (Export), JNCH, Mumbai is directed to dispose of the claim of the applicants within a period of 1 month from the date of receipt of this order….”

The Miscellaneous applications were allowed.

In passing : Fingers crossed.

By the way, take a look at the Board's instructions on the subject matter -

++ Circular 802/35/2004-CX,Dated : Dec 8,2004

4. Accordingly, the contents of the Circular No. 275/37/2000-CX.8A dated 02.01.2002, as to the modalities for return of the pre-deposits are reiterated. It is again reiterated that in terms of Hon'ble Supreme Court's order such pre-deposit must be returned within 3 months from the date of the order passed by the Appellate Tribunal/Court or other Final Authority unless there is a stay on the order of the Final Authority/CESTAT/Court, by a superior Court.??

5. Delay beyond this period of three months in such cases will be viewed adversely and appropriate disciplinary action will be initiated against the concerned defaulting officers. All concerned are requested to note that default will entail an interest liability, if such liability accrues by reason of any orders of the CESTAT/Court, such orders will have to be complied with and it may be recoverable from the concerned officers .

++ And the latest Circular 984/08/2014-CX, Dated: September 16, 2014.

5.6. It is reiterated that refund of pre-deposit made should not be withheld on the ground that Department is proposing to file an appeal or has filed an appeal against the order granting relief to the party. Jurisdictional Commissioner should ensure that refund of deposit made for hearing the appeal should be paid within the stipulated time of 15 days as per para 5.2 supra.

Incidentally, the CBEC has decided that the Central Excise Day on 24th February 2015 is to be celebrated as 'Year of Taxpayers Services'

(See 2015-TIOL-308-CESTAT-MUM)


POST YOUR COMMENTS
   

TIOL Tube Latest

Shri Samrat Choudhary, Hon’ble Deputy CM & FM of State of Bihar, delivering inaugural speech at TIOL Tax Congress 2024.



Justice A K Patnaik, Mentor to Hon'ble Jury for TIOL Awards 2024, addressing the gathering at the event.