|
Advanced Search Options
Customs - Case Laws
Showing 301 to 320 of 1607 Records
-
2023 (11) TMI 69
Availability of exemption from the whole of the customs duty by Beetal Teletech under Serial No. 13 of the notification dated 01.03.2005, as amended by notification dated 11.07.2014 - Classification of imported goods - Wireless Access Points WAP / MIMO Product (products having MIMO Technology) - classifiable under Customs Tariff Item CTI 8517 62 90 or not - period from July 2014 to June 2017 - Extended period of limitation.
Whether the exclusion clause covers products having only MIMO technology and not working on LTE standard. Exclusion clause (iv) uses the conjunction ‘and’ and, therefore, it can be urged that the scope of clause (iv) can be restricted to those products that have MIMO and LTE both and that the product that only has MIMO technology may, therefore, not be covered by this exclusion clause and, therefore, may not be excluded from the scope of Serial No. 13?
HELD THAT:- What needs to be remembered is that MIMO is a technology and cannot be treated as an independent product. If the intention was to exclude even products having only MIMO technology, then the word ‘products’ should have been used after MIMO as well as after LTE. It, therefore, follows that the scope of ‘products’ excluded by entry (iv) would be products which use both MIMO and LTE. Thus, the term ‘Multiple Input/Multiple Output (MIMO) and Long Term Evolution (LTE) Products’ means products which contain both MIMO and LTE. This view finds support from the the decision of Division Bench of the Tribunal in Ingram Micro India [2020 (11) TMI 9 - CESTAT CHENNAI] confirmed the classification of identical product (i.e. WAP) under CTI 8517 62 90 and extended the benefit of the subsequent notification dated 30.07.2017. The Department has accepted the Order passed by the Tribunal. Therefore, once the benefit has been granted to Ingram Micro in the subsequent notification for an identical product, the benefit under the notification dated 01.03.2005, as amended on 11.07.2014 should also be extended to Beetal Teletech.
It is also well settled law that an exclusionary clause in an exemption notification should be strictly construed and must be given a narrow meaning so as to not frustrate the intention behind the exemption notification - It has been stated that the investigation by the DRI was not only against Beetal Teletech but few other importers of these goods also and the proceedings initiated against other importers was dropped but appeals have not been filed by the Department.
The aforesaid discussion leads to be inevitable conclusion that WAP imported by the appellant works on technology and does not support LTE standard. Ingram Micro was, therefore, justified in claiming exemption from the whole of the customs duty under Serial No. 13 (iv) of the notification. There is, therefore, no infirmity in the order dated 28.11.2019 passed by the Additional Director.
The two Customs Appeals filed by the Department, therefore, deserve to be dismissed and are dismissed.
-
2023 (11) TMI 68
Classification of goods proposed to be imported - Routers - to be classified under sub-heading 8517 62 90 or not - eligibility benefit of exemption under Sr. No. 13N of Notification No. 24/2005-Customs, dated 1-3-2005, as amended - HELD THAT:- The impugned goods are devices that connect two or more packet-switched networks or sub-networks and deliver Wi-Fi network access to all parts of the house. They serve two primary functions: managing traffic between these networks by forwarding data packets to their intended IP addresses, and allowing multiple devices to use the same internet connection. The Wavlink models Quantum D2G, Quantum S2K and WL-WN529E4 are wireless routers, which use an Ethernet cable to connect to a modem.
A mesh Wi-Fi system is a home networking solution that opts for a more decentralised approach. Instead of connecting all the devices through the same router, mesh Wi-Fi systems rely on multiple Wi-Fi nodes. One node is the designated primary router and is directly wired into the gateway connection, while the other nodes act as satellites. Collectively, the nodes function as a single network. The device gets connected to the node that is closest to it. As per the applicant, the subject goods are classifiable under Chapter Heading 8517 of Customs Tariff Act, 1975 and ought to be specifically classified under sub-heading 8517 62 90, as they are routing apparatus and are supported by the HSN Explanatory notes under Heading 85.17. Further they attract eligibility benefit of exemption under Sr. No. 13N of Notification No. 24/2005-Customs, dated 1-3-2005, as amended.
In order to merit classification under 8517, it is essential that the subject goods under consideration meet the criteria as laid down in the relevant headings, sub-heading and notes cited above. From the relevant headings and HSN notes reiterated above, it is apparent that (a) Switching and routing apparatus are specifically covered under sub-heading 8517 62, (b) Routers are covered as other communication apparatus in the HSN notes under sub-heading 8517 62 and (c) Communication apparatus of sub-heading 8517 62 including routers, support the reception, conversion and transmission of signals and allow for the connection to a wired or wireless communication network - As the goods under consideration satisfy all the above conditions, they merit classification under sub-heading 8517 62. As the routers are not specifically covered under any tariff entry under said sub-heading 8517 62, they are classified under the residual Tariff Heading 8517 62 90.
Further, Sr. No. 13N of Notification No. 24/2005-Customs, dated 1-3-2005, as amended, exempts “Routers” falling under Heading 8517 62 90 from the whole of the duty of customs leviable thereon. As the impugned goods are held as classifiable under sub-heading 8517 62 90 they are entitled to the duty exemption benefit under the notification.
The Routers covered under present application are classifiable under sub-heading 8517 62 90 of the First Schedule to the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 and would be eligible to avail benefit of duty exemption under Sr. No. 13N of Notification No. 24/2005-Customs, dated 1-3-2005, as amended.
-
2023 (11) TMI 23
Maintainability of petition - availability of alternative remedy - Classification of imported goods - Glucometer - High Court has rejected the contention on alternate remedy because Respondent No.2 (Adjudicating authority) has not even examined the merits of the case when there was a binding order of CESTAT in the case of Bayer [2015 (11) TMI 943 - CESTAT MUMBAI] and allowed the writ Petion - HELD THAT:- On facts, the High Court was right in exercising the extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, notwithstanding the availability of statutory remedy.
The Special Leave Petition is dismissed.
-
2023 (11) TMI 22
Denial of exemption under Sr.5 of Notification No.45/2017 dated 30.6.2017 - re-import of goods exported earlier for participation in exhibition or on a consignment basis - requirement of exported goods to be brought back within six months of the removal - Imposition of penalty upon the appellant - HELD THAT:- Perusal of the said notification and circular No.108/27/2019-GST dated 18.7.2019 read with circular No.21/2019-Customs dated 24.7.2019 makes it clear that where the goods exported either under the Scheme of refund of integrated tax paid on export of goods or under bond without payment of integrated tax, on being re-imported, that too within six months of export, the same shall not amount to supply of goods - As per Section 5(1) of the IGST Act levy of the integrated tax is on inter-state ‘supply’ of goods or services or both. Thus, for levy of integrated tax there must be ‘supply’ of goods or services or both.
In the present case, the goods are sent either for exhibition or on consignment basis. The goods which are re-imported are the once which are not sold in the Exhibition or are not approved by the buyer. The ownership of the goods does not transfer to the buyer/consignee to whom the goods i.e. appellant. In case of Exhibition, the appellant only takes the goods out of India and brings the same back after Exhibition - in case of goods taken for exhibition both are same person. It is well settled principle that sale cannot be made to oneself only, similar concept is applicable in case of supply as well. Further, there is no consideration paid when the goods are re-imported by the appellant. Thus, at the time of re-import there is no ‘supply’ of goods as per Section 7 (1) (a) of the CGST Act.
Since the goods exported are already held to not to be ‘Goods Supplied’ but for exhibition, the goods exported on LUT bond gets apparently out of the scope of entry 1(d) of the notification dated 30.6.2017. Thus shall fall under entry 5 of the said notification to which applies ‘Nil’ duty. Thus, the demand has wrongly been confirmed with respect to these 3 bills of entry.
Imposition of penalty upon the appellant - HELD THAT:- The issue in the present case is of the interpretation of a particular notification. The appellant are held to have rightly availed the benefit of Notification No.45/2017-Customs dated 30.6.2017 - there are no evidence on record produced by the department which may prove alleged mens rea for the appellant to evade payment of customs duty. Though one Bill of Entry is held as not eligible for exemption from full customs duty but for want of evidence of alleged intent to evade, there are no justifying reason for imposition of penalty upon the appellant. Hence, the order imposing penalty upon the appellant is set aside.
The order under challenge is hereby set aside except for the amount of duty to be paid with reference to bill of entry No.6830735 dated 16.6.2018. Consequent thereto, appeal stands partly allowed.
-
2023 (11) TMI 21
Re-export - Rejection of request for provisional release of the seized goods - Mis-declaration of goods - Evasion of Anti-dumping duty - rejection on the ground that the investigation was still under progress - It is submitted that order was placed for Polyester Coated Fabric (Polymeric Compound), but wrong goods dispatched by the foreign supplier - HELD THAT:- It is not the case of the Revenue that the imported goods were either prohibited or forbidden or banned by any Foreign Trade Policies. Even if it is proved that it is a case of mis-declaration, the interest of the Revenue is always safeguarded by the undisputed fact of deposit of over Rs.2.37 crores by the appellant and in any case, there is no scope for re-valuation since the goods in question are not requested for clearance for home consumption, rather for re-export.
The pleading of the appellant as to the acceptance by the foreign supplier on the wrong shipment as well as taking back the goods in question clearly shows the bona fides of the appellant, which are not at all doubted anywhere by the authorities below.
There are no justifiable case made out by the authorities for not permitting the bona fide request for re-export of the seized goods and hence, we set aside the impugned order - the adjudicating authority is directed to accede to the request for provisional release of the seized goods forthwith after taking suitable bond and Bank Guarantee - appeal disposed off.
-
2023 (11) TMI 20
Classification of imported goods - Frequency Converter (variable speed drive) - to be classified under Chapter Heading 9032 89 90 or under Chapter Heading 8504 4010? - HELD THAT:- As rightly observed by the Commissioner (A) in the impugned orders, the products under Chapter 9032 refers to instruments and apparatus for automatically controlling the flow, level, pressure or other variables of liquids or gases, or for automatically controlling temperature, while the product under dispute undisputedly converts alternating current to different frequency which are entirely different from an automatic regulator. Therefore, the question of classifying the ‘Frequency converter imported by the appellant under 9032 is ruled out.
As per the literature of the imported item, essential character is that of inverter and hence, they are rightly classifiable under specific entry under Chapter 8504 as per the Interpretative Rules specified above. Moreover, they are more akin to the description given under Chapter 8504 and as per Clause (4) above of “General Rules for the Interpretation of Import Tariff” they are to be classified under Chapter Heading 8504 only - Admittedly, the principal function of the imported item is of an inverter and it is also not under dispute that these drives are being used in those machinery which are classifiable under Chapter 84 or 85. Therefore, based on the above Section Notes absolutely there is no confusion as to the classification of the product. It also says that the machine refers to the machines classifiable under Chapter 84 or 85 so the question of classifying the product under Chapter 90 does not arise. The WCO also for which India is a member decided the classification of the ‘frequency converter’ under Chapter 8504.
The goods are rightly classifiable under Chapter Heading 8504 as against the classification under Chapter Heading 9032 as claimed by the appellant - appeal dismissed.
-
2023 (11) TMI 19
Classification of goods proposed to be imported - Data Projector Model (i) ZH 350, (ii) ZW 350e & (iii) ZX 350e - to be classified under Sub-heading 85286200 or under Sub-heading 85286900? - eligibility for exemption from duty vide Serial No. 17 of the Notification No. 24/2005-Cus. dated 1-3-2005, as amended - HELD THAT:- As per technical features stated in the leaftlets of the subject goods, computer compatibility features and input/output connections mentioned therein indicate that subject goods are fitted with connectors characteristics of data processing system. Thus, the subject goods do not merit classification under Sub-heading 85286900.
The applicant vide their declaration in the application for advance ruling has stated that projectors in question are not of a kind used as home theatre projectors or video projectors, even going by the resolution output. Further, under Sub-heading 85286200, projectors which are capable of directly connecting to and designed for use with an automatic data processing system of 8471, merit classification therein. Therefore, reference is drawn to Chapter Note of Chapter 84 of the Customs Tariff. Chapter Note 6(C) of Chapter 84 lays down conditions for a unit to be regarded as being part of an automatic data processing system - Note 6(E) of Chapter 84 lays down that machines incorporating or working in conjunction with an automatic data processing machine and performing a specific function other than data processing are to be classified in the headings appropriate to their respective functions or, failing that, in residual headings. Sub-heading 85286200 classify projectors capable of directly connecting to and designed for use with an automatic data processing machine of heading 8471.
It is evident that the projectors in question are designed for use with an automatic data processing machine. It also appears that the subject goods has got additional ports which may make it capable of being a video projector, classifiable under 85286900. In this regard, it may be mentioned that rule 3 of General Rules for Interpretation of Import Tariff states that, "the heading which provides the most specific description shall be preferred to headings providing a more general description" - as regards applicability of exemption notification, it is noted that under Sl. No. 17 of Notification No. 24/2005, as amended, all goods of a kind solely or principally used in an automatic data processing system of heading 8471, falling under Sub-heading 852842, 852852 or 852862 are given exemption.
Thus, projectors in question are machines working in conjunction with an automatic data processing machine and performing a specific function other than data processing, thus the same merit classification in the headings appropriate to their respective function i.e. 85286200. Moreover, subject goods are eligible for exemption from duties vide Sl. No. 17 of Notification No. 24/2005-Cus. dated 1-3-2005, as amended.
-
2023 (10) TMI 1522
Enhancement of value of imported “Christmas light” and others electrical items from China - adoption of NIDB data to enhance the value - HELD THAT:- The Department has not made any attempt to follow the procedure given under the Valuation (Determination of Value of Importers Goods) Rules 2007 and has simply adopted the NIDB data and selectively enhanced value - the Commissioner (Appeals), has given a detailed finding along with reasons while setting aside the Order-in-Original. There are no reason to interfere with the same.
The appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed.
-
2023 (10) TMI 1518
Challenge to the assessment of one bill of entry - HELD THAT:- The first appellate authority had disposed off challenge only to the assessment in one of the bills of entry with the reasoning that each assessment must be challenged separately as prescribed in Customs Act, 1962. It is on record that there is only one order of assessment and it appears that the original authority had merely appended all decisions to that one order of assessment. That is clearly not in accord with the mandate of section 17(5) of Customs Act, 1962.
As per Customs (Appeals) Rules, 1982, each assessment should be challenged separately. At the same time, it is also prescribed that each form of appeal should append the assessment under challenge. In the absence of separate assessment for each import, it was not possible to comply with the requirement therein. It was incumbent upon the first appellate authority to ensure that the original authority comply with the law to enable proper challenge. This, he had failed in doing.
The impugned order could have remanded all the appeals for compliance with the mandate of law. As only the lone order of assessment was found to merit remand, there was no reason not to remand back the others also - Appeal allowed by way of remand.
-
2023 (10) TMI 1516
Evasion of Customs Duty - entering into sham agreements with a view to split the consideration for supply of imported equipments under FOB Agreement into designs & drawings and other post importation activities so as to evade customs duty - EPCG Licenses do not carry the ‘H Blast’ as the location - Spares have been imported under EPCG which are required only subsequent to the installation of the capital goods - Extended period of limitation - confiscation - penalties.
EPCG Licenses do not carry the ‘H Blast’ as the location - HELD THAT:- It is observed from the documentary evidence placed before us, the appellants have sought necessary amendment for the EPCG License to include the name of ‘H Blast’ therein. These requests were entertained by the DGFT and on examination of the amendment letters issued by them, it clear this issue has been properly addressed by the appellant. Therefore, the confirmed demand on this account does not survive and the same is set aside.
In respect of the spares imported by them under EPCG, the imported assemblies, sub-assemblies, components, sub-components are held as allowed as spares under the Foreign Trade Policy. Apart from this, Paragraph 6 of 5.1 of FTP, which defines the capital goods to include spares, meaning that the spares can be imported for pre-production purposes also. In order to obtain the Discharge Certificate for the EPCG License issued by the DGFT, the appellants have provided the details of spares imported by them and DGFT is satisfied with the imports made. Therefore, when the FTP allows such imports under the EPCG, the Customs Dept. cannot question the same and in fact have no authority to do so.
Thus, the confirmed demand on this account is required to be set aside.
Contract divided into several sham contracts - HELD THAT:- It is clear that right from the beginning, even at the stage of pre-first Offer dated 15.01.2003, the clear demarcation of service, purchase, scope of work was available at all stages. This was the case with all the other intervening Offer letters till the Final Offer dated 29.7.2005. Thus, it shows that proper planning was made for this project clearly demarcating the import of goods, purchase of indigenous goods, involvement of service works etc. The Final Six Agreements dated 1.8.2005 are the result of the detailed discussions and planning undertaken during the period 15.1.2003 till 1.8.2005.
The Revenue has built the present case purely on presumptions and assumptions basis, without actually verifying the documentary evidence placed before them. The Adjudicating authority has failed to appreciate these documentary evidence and has confirmed the demand by simply relying the assumptions made during the issue of the SCN. Hence, the confirmed demand of Rs. 32,76,67,821 is legally not sustainable.
Extended period of limitation - demand being issued for the period which is beyond even the extended period of five years - HELD THAT:- In the present case, the appellants have placed all the documents before the Appraising Officer and the goods have been cleared in the normal course. There is nothing to suggest from the present proceedings that the goods were provisionally assessed. Further, as all the transactions have been carried out with clear records for all the pre-offers and subsequent Four Offers in a transparent manner, we do not see any suppression coming out in the entire transaction. At the most, it would amount a proper taxplanning, keeping in view the best interest of the appellant company. Nothing with any substance has been brought on record that the appellant has indulged in any suppression, so as to invoke the extended period demand. Hence, the confirmed demand for the extended period is legally not sustainable on account of limitation also. Hence, the Appeal is allowed even on account of Limitation.
Confiscation - penalties - HELD THAT:- The confirmed demands do not sustain both on merits as well as on account of limitation against the main appellant TISCO. Hence, the confiscation ordered and penalties imposed on them also do not survive.
Conclusion - i) The confirmed demands against TISCO do not survive both on account of merit as well as on account of limitation. ii) The confiscation order stands set aside. iii) The penalties imposed against TISCO and all the other appellants stands set aside.
The impugned order set aside - appeal allowed.
-
2023 (10) TMI 1512
Classification of Roasted Areca/Betel Nuts (whole or cut) intended to be imported - to be classified under Chapter 8, which covers "edible fruits and nuts," or under Chapter 20, which covers "preparations of vegetables, fruit, nuts or other parts of plants? - HELD THAT:-The processes mentioned in Chapter 8 include chilling, steaming, boiling, drying and provisionally preserving. It does not specifically include the process of roasting. Here it is important to understand the difference between the processes of moderate heat treatment & dehydrating/drying referred in chapter 8 and processes of dry roasting, oil-roasting and fat- roasting referred in chapter 20. The terms dry-roasting, oil roasting and fat-roasting however are not defined in the Customs Tariff Act, 1975.
Chapter 20 of the Tariff covers the Preparations of vegetables, fruit, nuts or other parts of plants. As per Chapter Note 1 (a) to Chapter 20, the Chapter does not cover vegetables, fruits or nuts prepared or preserved by the processes specified in Chapters 7, 8 or 11. Therefore, vegetable, fruit or nut products or preparations made other than by the processes specified in Chapters 7, 8 or 11 are classifiable in Chapter 20. The processes specified in Chapters 7, 8 or 11 mainly include freezing, steaming, boiling, drying, provisionally preserving and milling. Therefore, any vegetable, fruit, nut or edible parts of a plant which is prepared or preserved by any other process than these are liable to be classified under Chapter 20.
As per HSN Explanatory Notes, heading 2008 covers fruit, nuts and other edible parts of plants, whether whole, in pieces or crushed, including mixtures thereof, prepared or preserved otherwise than by any of the processes specified in other Chapters or in the preceding headings of this Chapter. Specifying what is included in this heading, the explanatory note states that almonds, ground nuts, areca (or betel) nuts and other nuts, dry-roasted, oil-roasted or fat-roasted, whether or not containing or coated with vegetable oil, salt, flavours, spices or other additives. Dry-roasting, oil-roasting & fat-roasting, as a process, are very much a part of chapter heading 2008 by virtue of HSN Explanatory Notes. It is also pertinent to observe that none of these processes are mentioned in the chapter note 3 to Chapter 8 of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 as well as HSN Explanatory Notes to Chapter heading 0802.
The Honourable High Court of Madras in its recent judgement on 01.08.2023 [2023 (8) TMI 492 - MADRAS HIGH COURT], has upheld the classification of Roasted Betel Nuts under CTH 2008 19 20.
Conclusion - The Roasted areca/betel nuts fall under Custom Tariff Heading 2008, specifically under CTI 2008 19 20 'Other roasted nuts & seeds' of Chapter 20 of the First Schedule of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975.
-
2023 (10) TMI 1469
Entitlement for benefit of N/N. 34/2015-C.E. dated 17.07.2015 and N/N. 37/2015-C.E. dated 21.07.2015 - Challenge to vires of N/Ns. 34/2015 and 37/2015 - It is the case of the assessee-importer that since the Notification was not uploaded in the EDI system, the importer approached the assessment group for filing the bills-of-entry manually, but the same having not been accepted, they paid the duty under protest and thereafter preferred appeals before the first appellate authority - doctrine of merger - HELD THAT:- From Sl. No. (4), it is clear that upon granting of leave to appeal, though the finality of the judgement, decree or order appealed against is put in jeopardy, it continues to be binding and effective between the parties unless it is a nullity or unless the court may pass a specific order staying or suspending the operation or execution of the judgement, decree or order under challenge.
In the case on hand, going by the contentions, both verbal and written, the assessees-importers sought the benefit of Notification No. 30/2004-C.E. which was not available in the Revenue’s EDI system. Quite clearly, as on the date of filing the impugned bills-of-entry, there was a change in the law brought about by the amended Notification Nos. 34/2015 and 37/2015 ibid. and hence, the superseded Notification can never be available in the EDI system. What would be available is as per the amended law, that is, the new Notifications would replace the earlier Notification in the system as well. Hence, when a new law comes into effect, an importer can avail the benefit of such law only and if such law prescribes certain conditions, then it is incumbent upon such claimant to satisfy the conditions prescribed thereunder. He cannot be still heard to stake a claim for the benefit under an effaced Notification which is clearly not in vogue as on the date of import / filing of bills-of-entry.
Admittedly, what the appellants claimed is the benefit of exemption. Hence, when an exemption is claimed, the claimant should necessarily satisfy the conditions prescribed under the Notification under which such exemption is claimed. Conveniently, the appellants have chosen to make the exemption claim under a Notification which was not in existence at the time of imports. Hence, the authorities below have rightly proceeded to examine the claim of exemption under the available / prevalent Notifications i.e., Notification Nos. 34/2015-C.E. and 37/2015-C.E. ibid., and admittedly, the appellants have nowhere whispered about fulfilling all the conditions of the said Notifications which replaced Notification No. 30/2004-C.E.
The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS (IMPORT) , MUMBAI VERSUS M/S. DILIP KUMAR AND COMPANY & ORS. [2018 (7) TMI 1826 - SUPREME COURT] has clearly laid down that when the benefit of an exemption Notification is claimed, the claimant has to necessarily fulfil all the conditions prescribed under the said beneficial Notification.
The claim of the appellants for the benefit of Notification No. 30/2004-C.E., as amended vide Notification No. 34/2015-C.E. and Notification No. 37/2015-C.E., is not entertainable and has therefore been correctly rejected by the Ld. first appellate authority - no case being made out for interfering with the impugned Orders-in-Appeal - appeal dismissed.
-
2023 (10) TMI 1461
Seeking release of the goods which were seized - goods are perishable in nature - HELD THAT:- The end of the justice would be met by keeping all the grounds and arguments available to both the sides open and at this stage, since the goods involved are perishable in nature, the respondents are directed to release the goods subject to furnishing of personal bond/surety to the satisfaction of Commissioner of Customs.
Application disposed off accordingly.
-
2023 (10) TMI 1460
Refund claim to be the amount excess paid based on the finalisation of the provisional assessments - HELD THAT:- The matter is remanded to the original authority only to the limited extent of verification of the documents like BOE, TR-6 challans, finalisation of PD bond, etc., which appears to be have been submitted by the appellant to the assessment group and the appellant will also cooperate in providing all the documents wherever necessary. A reasonable opportunity of hearing may be granted to the appellant before the issue of refund is finalised.
-
2023 (10) TMI 1451
Maintainability of the writ petition - appellant sought liberty to convert the instant matter into a statutory appeal - HELD THAT:- We, grant the said liberty. Let the appellant take appropriate steps for conversion of the instant matter into a statutory appeal. The office to re-number the matter and place it before the appropriate Bench upon completion of all formalities. List again on 30.11.2023.
-
2023 (10) TMI 1440
Seeking grant of anticipatory bail as per section 438 of Cr.P.C. - well organized syndicate involved in smuggling of Areca Nuts in India - lack of evidence against appellant - HELD THAT:- It is to be noted that, there might be cases booked against the applicant, there is no document to show that in any of these cases the applicant was convicted. Unless the applicant is convicted it cannot be said that he is serial law breaker.
The applicant deserves protection from arrest - Application allowed.
-
2023 (10) TMI 1435
Condonation of delay in issuance of notices - HELD THAT:- The date of issuance of the show cause notice is 24.03.2021 which means that the show cause notice was issued 5 to 10 years thereafter. There is no explanation whatsoever for the delay in issuance of notices to the respondents-herein.
In the circumstances, a challenge made to the show cause notices before the High Court was successful inasmuch as the action of the respondent authority was held to be belated and hit by delay and latches. Consequently, the show cause notices were quashed - the impugned order would not call for any interference in this case.
SLP dismissed.
-
2023 (10) TMI 1434
Challenge to SCN issued by the Principal Additional Director General of the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence under Section 28 read with Section 124 of the Customs Act, 1962 - the respondents would be ad idem to contend that on similar issues the proceedings are already admitted by this Court and are pending, hence, similar orders can be passed on the present proceedings - HELD THAT:- As and by way of ad-interim relief, the impugned orders dated 4 September 2023 stayed, however, liberty to the respondents to make an application for vacating the said order in the event the respondents are of the opinion that the same ought not to be continued and / or after the decision of the Supreme Court in the pending Review / Writ Petition in the case of Canon India Private Ltd. [2022 (8) TMI 888 - SC ORDER].
-
2023 (10) TMI 1430
Delay in issuance of SCN - proper reason for delay or not - HELD THAT:- There is no explanation whatsoever for the delay in issuance of notices to the respondents-herein.
In the circumstances, a challenge made to the show cause notices before the High Court was successful inasmuch as the action of the respondent authority was held to be belated and hit by delay and latches. Consequently, the show cause notices were quashed - the impugned order would not call for any interference in this case.
The special leave petition is dismissed on the basis of delay and latches.
-
2023 (10) TMI 1422
100% EOU - remission of duty on capital goods destroyed - only argument put forth by the revenue is that the appellant was bound to take the necessary precautions to ensure the safety of the goods as per the provisions of the N/N. 52/2003 and the goods should have been insured not only for the value but for the duty forgone also - HELD THAT:- In the present appeal the fact that the fire accident took place and intimation given to the department is not under dispute.
The issue is squarely covered by the judgement of this Tribunal in the case Symphony Services Corp. India Pvt. Ltd. V/s Commissioner of Customs, Bangalore [2009 (1) TMI 692 - CESTAT, BANGALORE] where this tribunal has taken a view that 'in terms of Section 68, when there is relinquishment of title to the goods imported before their clearance, no duty can be demanded. In these circumstances, in our view, the impugned order cannot be sustained.'
The appellant is eligible for the remission of duty - Appeal allowed.
............
|
9911796707
