News Update

Import Prohibition - Reference to the Patents Act, 1970 omitted from notification 51/2010-Cus(NT)Intellectual Property Rights (Imported Goods) Enforcement Rules, 2007 amendedImport of Milk and Milk Products from China - import prohibition extended till 23.12.2018I-T - Tax deducted at source on income of charitable trust cannot be treated as taxable income: ITATGST - Howrah Commissionerate detects Rs 43 Crore tax evasion through fake invoicesGeM - Transactions worth Rs 8700 Crore done in short time, says PMRanchi NCB seizes 400 kg ganja from truck in Bokaro Steel CityIndia to make Chabahar Port operation by 2019: GadkariST - For any inaction on part of Revenue to submit Final Verification Report, petitioners cannot be made to suffer - matter remanded to Settlement Commission: High CourtGST: A Frightening but Fascinating Future world…! – Part III (See 'TOG INSIGHT')I-T - Application of fund for benefit of earthquake victims and its communication to donee before stipulated date, is sufficient for charitable trust to avail benefit of exemption u/s 80G(5C): HCPanama Papers - Leak-I - Out of 426 only 76 cases found actionable: GovtST - Taxability is not determined by section 67 of Finance Act, 1994 but by coverage in section 65: CESTATCIC decides proceedings not to abate even if complainant diesGovt sets up Panel to update Voluntary Guidelines on Social, Environmental & Economic Responsibilities of Business12 lakh pax electric cars sold in 2017; up by 58% from 2016: UNCommerce Department to get new homeCentre invites views on draft CSR guidelinesCanada passes bill to legalise use of marijuana from Oct 17, 2018Govt appoints Mr M K Sinha as new Joint Secy - TRU-IIDrive Against Shell Companies - A cul-de-sac!Liquor licences: Undoubtedly Taxable before as well as after GST Roll outMCA invites comments on Draft on cross-border insolvencyCBDT notifies PFC & Railway Finance Corp 54EC Capital Gains Bonds
 
Cus - Commissioner had misplaced sympathy on appellant to exonerate them - CC to conduct enquiry & do needful: CESTAT

By TIOL News Service

MUMBAI, JULY 17, 2017: WHILE conducting investigation, the Customs department noticed that the goods [Polyester fabrics] were overvalued to take undue DEPB credit.

The Commissioner relied on the market enquiry reports as well as the quality report and disallowed DEPB credit only in respect of live consignment . Insofar as the earlier two bills of entry were concerned, the adjudicating authority did not deny DEPB although the goods were overvalued.

The appellants filed appeals before the CESTAT in the year 2007 but on account of their non-appearance the matters were rolling on board on several occasions. When a last opportunity of hearing was extended, an adjournment application was filed stating that one Shri Suriyanarayanan is unable to appear. Noting that it is not mentioned whether the said person is engaged as an Advocate and considering that the application is not filed by the appellant or representing counsel, the same was rejected.

The AR prayed that the order should be upheld. Incidentally, there is no mention of any Revenue appeal.

The Bench observed -

“5. When the records were perused, it transpires that there was overvaluation of the goods as per the Quality Certificate issued by the aforesaid two entities and learned Commissioner without going into the sum and substance of investigation as depicted in para 7 and 8 of the show cause notice, had misplaced sympathetically on appellant to exonerate them from charge against the previous consignment of claim of undue DEPB credit. He allowed DEPB credit on past consignments to the detriment of justice. He only disallowed DEPB credit only on the live consignment. Further he permitted M/s. H.M. Printer to take back the goods on payment of redemption fine.”

Expressing surprise at the manner in which the matter was adjudicated with total disregard to law causing prejudice to interest of Revenue (in the words of the CESTAT), the Chief Commissioner was requested to conduct enquiry and ‘do the needful at his end '.

As for the appeal's, the Bench observed that the SCN brings out contumacious conduct of the appellant and their manner of disregard to the law without providing any material to exhibit their co-operation with the investigation; that there were some bogus entities and fake bills were raised by them to enable the appellants to inflate value of the exports.

Concluding that the appellants had oblique motive to defraud revenue in the manner brought out in the show cause notice and fake and fabricated invoices were used to make undue DEPB claim, the appeals were dismissed.

(See 2017-TIOL-2452-CESTAT-MUM)


POST YOUR COMMENTS