News Update

Maneka Gandhi declares assets worth Rs 97 Cr and files nomination papers from SultanpurGlobal 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 - Application for renewal of licence was pending with Department - there is no illegality in order of AC suspending warehousing licence of appellant exercising power given u/s 58(3) - appeal dismissed: CESTAT

By TIOL News Service

MUMBAI, AUG 29, 2016 : AN appeal has been filed against an action of suspension of the warehousing licence issued u/s 58(3) of the Customs Act, 1962 for the reason that there was some case enquiry initiated against the appellant.

It is informed that the warehousing licence expired on 31.3.2009 and the appellant had applied for renewal on 7.4.2009 and during the process of renewal, the licence earlier granted was suspended. It is, therefore, submitted that when after 31.3.2009 the warehousing licence was not in force, the suspension of the said licence was not warranted.

The AR submitted that irrespective of the fact whether the licencehad expired or not the resultant effect of suspension of licenceis that the appellant is barred from using the facility of warehousing. Moreover, the appellant had applied for the renewal of licence and in that context the suspension of licence is in order.

The Bench observed

"4. …I find that the licence was suspended by the adjudicating authority on the ground that some case enquiry was going on against the appellant. It is provided under the sub-section (3) of Section 58 of the Customs Act, 1962 that - "Pending an enquiry whether a licence granted under sub-section (1) should be cancelled under clause (b) of sub-section (2), the Assistant / Deputy Commissioner of Customs may suspended the licence". In the present case there is no order of cancellation of licence at the same time the appellant's application for renewal of licence was pending with the department. The licence was suspended exercising the power given under Section 58(3) of the Customs Act, 1962. I am therefore of the view that there is no illegality in the order of the Assistant Commissioner suspending the warehousing licence of the appellant. Therefore, the impugned order is sustainable…."

The Appeal was dismissed.

(See 2016-TIOL-2213-CESTAT-MUM )


POST YOUR COMMENTS