SIGN IN SUBSCRIBE

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
 
Commissioner (Appeals) allowed appeal for earlier period - Ordering pre-deposit of full duty in another appeal of identical issue is not correct - Petitioner is entitled for full waiver: HC

By TIOL News Service

CHENNAI, DEC 21, 2016: THE petitioner has challenged the order passed by the Commissioner of Customs [Appeals] in the stay petitions filed by the petitioner in the appeals preferred against the order-in-original with regard to the classification of the goods which are imported by the petitioner. In the Bill of Entry No.639031 dated 05.01.2008, the petitioner declared the goods as "Low Noise Block Down Converter" and classified the same under CTH 85437099. However, the Adjudicating Authority, by order dated 06.11.2013, classified the product as "Universal Single KU Low Noise Booster" under CTH 85299090 and demanded differential duty of Rs.1,58,548/-. When the petitioner sought for stay of this order, the Commissioner [Appeals] has directed that the entire amount to be pre-deposited for being entitled to an order of stay.

The Petitioner submitted that they have made out a prima facie case before the Commissioner [Appeals] inasmuch as in respect of an identical import, the Commissioner [Appeals] has passed an order in favour of the petitioner in Order-in-Appeal No.580/2013 dated 04.04.2013. Apart from that, the petitioner relied upon a Circular No.13/2013 issued by the Central Board of Excise and Customs dated 05.04.2013. Therefore, the Commissioner [Appeals] ought to have granted stay of demand of the differential duty and heard the appeals on merits.

After hearing both sides, the High Court held:

+ Insofar as the aspect relating to prima facie case is concerned, this Court is of the view that in respect of the identical import, the Commissioner [Appeals], in the Order-in-Appeal No.580/2013 dated 04.04.2013, has accepted the petitioner's classification of the goods as "CTH 85437099". That apart, Circular No.13/2013 dated 05.04.2013, also prima facie appears to be fully in favour of the petitioner. Thus, the petitioner has been able to establish a prima facie case, which also would lien in favour of the petitioner while considering the aspect of balance of convenience.

+ With regard to irreparable hardship is concerned, though the petitioner has not pleaded any financial difficulty, since the issue is covered by Circular issued by the Central Board of Excise and Customs and the order passed by the Commissioner [Appeals] in assessee's own case in Order-in-Appeal No.580/2013 dated 04.04.2013. This Court is convinced that the petitioner is entitled to an order of stay without any condition for being able to contest the appeal before the Commissioner [Appeals].

+ Accordingly, the writ petitions are allowed and the impugned orders in F.No.C3/1226 & 1228/D/2013-SEA dated 23.01.2014 are set aside and there will be an order of stay of the order-in-original dated 05.11.2013, till the appeals are heard and disposed of by the Commissioner (Appeals).

(See 2016-TIOL-3064-HC-MAD-CUS)


POST YOUR COMMENTS
   

TIOL Tube Latest

TIOL Tube
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.

TOP NEWS

AR not Afar by SK Rahman

VISION 360



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

TII LATEST

TIOLCORPLAWS LATEST