News Update

Global Debt & Fiscal Silhouette rising! Do Elections contribute to fiscal slippages?ISRO study reveals possibility of water ice in polar cratersGST - Statutory requirement to carry the necessary documents should not be made redundant - Mistake committed by appellant is not extending e-way bill after the expiry, despite such liberty being granted under the Rules attracts penalty: HCBiden says migration has been good for US economyGST - Tax paid under wrong head of IGST instead of CGST/SGST - 'Relevant Date' for refund would be the date when tax is paid under the correct head: HCUS says NO to Rafah operation unless humanitarian plan is in place + Colombia snaps off ties with IsraelGST - Petitioner was given no opportunity to object to retrospective cancellation of registration - Order is also bereft of any details: HCMay Day protests in Paris & Istanbul; hundreds arrestedGST - Proper officer should have at least considered the reply on merits before forming an opinion - Ex facie, proper officer has not applied his mind: HCSaudi fitness instructor jailed for social media post - Amnesty International seeks releaseGST - A Rs.17.90 crores demand confirmed on Kendriya Bhandar by observing that reply is insufficient - Non-application of mind is clearly written all over the order: HCDelhi HC orders DGCA to deregister GO First’s aircraftGST - Neither the SCN nor the order spell the reasons for retrospective cancellation of registration, therefore, they are set aside: HCIndia successfully tests SMART anti-submarine missile-assisted torpedo systemST - Appellant was performing statutory functions as mandated by EPF & MP Act, and the Constitution of India, as per Board's Circular 96/7/2007-ST , services provided under Statutory obligations are not taxable: CESTATKiller heatwave kills hundreds of thousands of fish in Southern VietnamI-T - Scrutiny assessment order cannot be assailed where assessee confuses it with order passed pursuant to invocation of revisionary power u/s 263: HCHong Kong struck by close to 1000 lightningI-T - Assessment order invalidated where passed in rushed manner to avoid being hit by impending end of limitation period: HCColumbia Univ campus turns into ‘American Gaza’ - Pro-Palestinian students & counter-protesters clashI-T - Additions framed on account of bogus purchases merits being restricted to profit element embedded therein, where AO has not doubted sales made out of such purchases: HCIndia to host prestigious 46th Antarctic Treaty Consultative MeetingI-T - Miscellaneous Application before ITAT delayed by 1279 days without any just causes or bona fide; no relief for assessee: HCAdani Port & SEZ secures AAA RatingI-T - Assessee is eligible for deduction u/s 54EC on account of investment made in REC Bonds, provided both investments were made within period of six months as prescribed u/s 54EC: ITATNominations for Padma Awards 2025 beginsI-T - PCIT cannot invoke revisionary jurisdiction u/s 263 when there is no case of lack of enquiry or adequate enquiry on part of AO: ITATMissile-Assisted Release of Torpedo system successfully flight-tested by DRDOI-T - If purchases & corresponding sales were duly matched, it cannot be said that same were made out of disclosed sources of income: ITATViksit Bharat @2047: Taxes form the BedrockI-T - Reopening of assessment is invalid as while recording reasons for reopening of assessment, AO has not thoroughly examined materials available in his own record : ITAT
 
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 N K Singh, recipient of TIOL FISCAL HERITAGE AWARD 2023, delivering his acceptance speech at Fiscal Awards event held on April 6, 2024 at Taj Mahal Hotel, New Delhi.


Shri Ram Nath Kovind, Hon'ble 14th President of India, addressing the gathering at TIOL Special Awards event.