|
Advanced Search Options
Customs - Case Laws
Showing 441 to 460 of 40545 Records
-
2025 (4) TMI 1295
Classification of imported goods - Toshiba Air conditioner Outdoor unit - Toshiba Air Conditioner Indoor units - to be classified under CTH 8515 9000, thereby availing the benefit of Customs Notification No.46/2011 Sl. No. 1103(1) or under CTH 8415 8110? - HELD THAT:- After going through the orders, that the Tribunal has considered the contentions of the Revenue for denying the benefit of notification and ordering re-classification per OIO for the reasons given thereunder and it has been clearly laid down that the goods in question would fall under CTH 84159000 as ‘parts’. In view of the above and following the judicial discipline, there are no merit in the impugned order, which calls for setting aside the same.
Conclusion - Indoor and outdoor units of multi-split air conditioners operating on Variable Refrigerant Flow technology, imported together as a combination, are classifiable as parts under CTH 8415 9000.
Appeal allowed.
-
2025 (4) TMI 1294
Rectification of the mistake - typographical errors - errors occurred due to incorporation of the facts of another appeal on the similar controversy about manufacture of lithium ion battery or Power Bank and the exemption available under Notification No. 50/2017 dated 30.06.2017 Entry No. 512 - HELD THAT:- It is observed to to be an acknowledgement that the facts in the present final order are similar to the facts of some other appeal which probably would have been decided at the similar point of time. Hence the record of the orders pronounced and that of hearing got checked.
It came to notice that another appeal titled as XOR Technologies LLP Vs. Principal Commissioner of Customs (Preventive), New Delhi [2024 (10) TMI 297 - CESTAT NEW DELHI]. It involved the same issue of benefit of Notification No. 50/2017 dated 30.06.2017 and whether the product manufactured by the appellant is Lithium Ion Battery Pack or Power Bank. Except that in present case, it is Lithium Ion Battery instead of Lithium Ion Battery Pack.
The present appeal was heard on 25.06.2024 and the impugned final order is dated 18.10.2024. The perusal of final order dated 30.09.2024 in said the appeal shows that the appellant therein were also availing the benefit of Notification No. 50/2017 dated 30th June 2017 entry at Sr. No. 512 being importing raw material for manufacture of Lithium-ion battery Packs - keeping in view that the defects pointed out are nothing but the typographical errors which have occurred due to overlapping of facts of two appeals heard simultaneously with respect to the same subject matter.
Conclusion - The identified errors are typographical and their rectification ordered as per the appellant's submissions and the factual matrix.
With incorporations of such typographical correction in respective paragraphs of the final order, as mentioned the application seeking rectification of typographical errors in the said final order stands allowed.
-
2025 (4) TMI 1251
Classification of 'Receivers' - to be classified under CTH 85177090 or CTH 85181000? - Classification and eligibility of 'Microphones' for exemption under various notifications - Classification of 'Battery Cover, Back Cover, Camera Lens, and Front Cover' and their eligibility for concessional duty - HELD THAT:- It is stated at the bar that identical matters have been dismissed by this Court in the case of Padget Electronics Pvt. Ltd. and M/s Samsung India Electronics Pvt. Ltd. [2024 (7) TMI 1220 - SC ORDER] - Following the orders passed by this Court, these Civil Appeals also dismissed.
-
2025 (4) TMI 1250
Maintainability of petition - availability of alternative remedy - Validity of Provisional Attachment under section 110(5) r/w section 28BA of the customs act at a stage which is anterior to finalization of an assessment or raising of the Demand - basic order on the basis of which impugned intimation dated 03.12.2024 has been issued, not challenged - Jurisdiction to issue impugned intimation/attachment order - alternative remedy under Section 110A of Customs Act, 1962 - Colourable exercise of power by Respondents in provisionally attaching the bank accounts of the petitioners - time barred attachment order.
Basic order on the basis of which impugned intimation dated 03.12.2024 has been issued, not challenged - HELD THAT:- A bare perusal of so called basic order dated 02.12.2024 would reveal that it is merely a note-sheet wherein approval has been obtained for issuing the intimation under Section 110(5) of Customs Act, 1962 and the same was not even communicated to the Petitioners for them to be able to challenge the same. Even otherwise, in the considered opinion of this court, there is no need for separate challenge to the note-sheet dated 02.12.2024 as the same stood merged with impugned intimation dated 03.12.2024.
Maintainability of the petition in view of availability of alternative efficacious remedy - HELD THAT:- It has been settled by catena of decisions that the availability of alternative remedy is not an absolute bar for granting relief in the exercise of power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India as the same is a rule of convenience and self imposed restriction and there are certain exceptions to the said rule.
In the case at hand, learned counsel for the petitioners has tried to persuade this court that the present petition is maintainable as the availability of alternative remedy provided under Section 110A of Customs Act is only available during the pendency of adjudication and not during the pendency of investigation - If this court comes to conclusion that the impugned intimation dated 03.12.2024 is without jurisdiction as the same has been issued during investigation and not during any proceedings which is impermissible in accordance with provisions of law, then certainly this petition would be maintainable and liable to be entertained by this court.
Whether the impugned intimation/attachment order dated 03.12.2024 issued under Section 110(5) of Customs Act, 1962 has been issued without jurisdiction or not? - HELD THAT:- A bare reading of Section 28, or Section 28AAA or Section 28B would reveal that the proceedings under the said Sections would commence only after issuance of Show Cause Notice as provided under the said Sections. Furthermore, as per Circular No. 10/2008-Customs and F.No.401/7/2004-Cus.III(Pt.) dated 30.06.2008 issued by the Government of India, Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue, Central Board of Excise & Customs also, it has been specifically instructed that the proceedings for provisional attachment can be initiated only after issuance of SCN under Section 28, 28AAA or 28B of Customs Act, 1962.
In the case at hand, it is an admitted fact that investigation is still pending and no show cause notice has been issued to the petitioners under the aforesaid provisions. Hence, in the considered opinion of this court, when there is no “proceeding” pending against the petitioners within the meaning attached to the said word under the provisions of Customs Act, 1962, Respondents had no jurisdiction/authority in law to pass an order of provisional attachment under Section 110(5) of Customs Act, 1962 pending investigation.
Whether the petitioners have alternative remedy under Section 110A of Customs Act, 1962 or not? - HELD THAT:- The remedy under Section 110A is not available to the petitioners during the stage of investigation but is only available after the proceedings are initiated before the adjudicating authority. Therefore, in view of the above, this court is of the considered opinion that the present petition challenging impugned intimation is maintainable as no alternative remedy is available to the petitioners under Section 110A of Customs Act, 1962 against impugned intimation dated 03.12.2024.
Colourable exercise of power by Respondents in provisionally attaching the bank accounts of the petitioners - HELD THAT:- The said question does not require consideration for the adjudication of the present petition and the same is left open in peculiar facts and circumstances of the present case.
Whether the impugned attachment order is time barred? - HELD THAT:- The petitioner has neither pleaded specifically nor established as to what is the “relevant date” from which the limitation would start to run in terms of Section 28. Even otherwise the said question also does not warrant consideration for the adjudication of the present petition as the said limitation has been provided for initiation of proceedings under Section 28 by issuance of Show Cause Notice and in the case at hand, no proceedings have been initiated as no show cause notice has been issued to petitioners and since this court has already held that the provisional attachment during investigation is itself without jurisdiction, the said question is also left open in peculiar facts and circumstances of the present case.
Ex Consequenti, impugned intimation dated 03.12.2024 issued under Section 110(5) of Customs Act, 1962 is hereby quashed for it being issued without jurisdiction and Respondents are directed to defreeze the bank accounts of the petitioners which have been provisionally attached vide impugned intimation dated 03.12.2024 with immediate effect - This court is constrained to observe that though the impugned intimation dated 03.12.2024 had been stayed by this court vide interim order dated 16.01.2025 but the Respondents have not defreezed the bank accounts of the petitioners which is a clear cut case of contempt of this court’s interim order. However, since the petition is being allowed and disposed off finally, it is expected from Respondents to comply with this order immediately and any non-compliance thereof, would be viewed seriously by this court.
Conclusion - i) The impugned provisional attachment order dated 03.12.2024 was issued without jurisdiction as no adjudication proceedings were pending. ii) The petitioners had no alternative remedy under Section 110A at the investigation stage; hence, the writ petition was maintainable. iii) The attachment order dated 03.12.2024 is quashed, and Respondents are directed to defreeze the petitioners' bank accounts immediately. iv) The Court refrained from deciding the question of colourable exercise of power and limitation under Section 28, leaving those issues open.
This petition deserves to be allowed and is hereby allowed.
-
2025 (4) TMI 1249
Imposition of cost of INR 50,000/- on the DRI officials - Seeking leave to produce additional documents - Jurisdiction of DRI officers had jurisdiction to issue show cause notices under the Customs Act, 1962 - HELD THAT:- For the period subsequent to the amendment, this Court in Mangali Impex Limited v. Union of India [2016 (5) TMI 225 - DELHI HIGH COURT] held that even the newly inserted Section 28(11) of the Customs Act does not empower either the officers of DRI to issue the SCN for the period prior to 8th April, 2011. Since the same issue was pending before the High Court of Bombay and High Court for the State of Telangana, the matter reached the Supreme Court and the decision in Mangali Impex Limited was stayed.
Having regard to the factual and procedural history outlined above, this Court is satisfied that the delay in the initiation of prosecution arose not from any wilful default or administrative indifference, but from complex legal and jurisdictional questions that were the subject of extended litigation and legislative intervention. The scope of authority exercised by DRI officers remained unsettled until clarified through multiple judgments and statutory amendments. In this background, the procedural delays, including the timing of the sanction and the belated filing of complaint, are not without explanation. However, the Department cannot be absolved of responsibility altogether - The failure to place relevant documents on record in a timely manner, has undoubtedly impeded the progress of proceedings. In this context, the imposition of costs by the Trial Court does not warrant interference. It operates as a measured judicial response to procedural lapses which, while understandable, cannot be left entirely unaddressed.
While the Trial Court was correct in viewing the Department as collectively responsible for the procedural lapse, the mode of enforcing that responsibility is not be warranted.
Conclusion - The imposition of costs by the Trial Court does not warrant interference. It operates as a measured judicial response to procedural lapses which, while understandable, cannot be left entirely unaddressed.
The cost imposed as a measure of institutional accountability by the Trial Court, is upheld. However, the directions contained in paragraphs No. 18 to 20 of the impugned order, insofar as they mandate recovery of the said cost from specific officers or from the Principal Additional Director General, DRI, are hereby set aside - Petition allowed in part.
-
2025 (4) TMI 1248
Challenge to adjudication of the show cause notice as being time barred - Inordinate delay in adjudication of SCN - SCN was issued on 31.07.2013, but it was adjudicated only on 19.01.2023 after a period of about ten years - whether the department can take advantage of expression “where it is possible to do so” for not adjudicating the show cause notice within one year? - HELD THAT:- The Delhi High Court then relied upon an earlier decision of the Delhi High Court in Sundar System Pvt. Ltd. vs. Union of India [2020 (1) TMI 199 - DELHI HIGH COURT] and observed that the legislature in its wisdom has provided a specific period for the authority to discharge its functions and indifference of the concerned officer to complete the adjudication within the time period cannot be condoned to the detriment of the assessee, for such indifference is not only detrimental to the interest of the taxpayer but also to the interest of the exchequer.
It would be seen from the aforesaid judgment of the Delhi High Court in Swatch Group that the High Court made it amply clear that the incorporation of words like “where it is possible to do so” merely give a certain degree of flexibility to the department where there are circumstances or insurmountable exigencies which make it impracticable or not possible for the authorities to adjudicate, and in such cases the authorities can deviate from the time limit provided in the Statute. The High Court further held that when the legislature has specifically provided flexibility only to the extent that it was not practicable/possible to adjudicate within the stipulated time, the period can be extended only on satisfaction of such circumstances. The Delhi High Court specifically observed that the phrase “where it is possible to do so” would only mean wherever it is not practicable or possible to do a certain act, the period can be extended but the same cannot provide endless time limit to the department without any plausible justification. In the present case, none of the aforesaid situations existed for extension of the time limit.
It would also be useful to refer to decisions that hold that even if a time limit is not prescribed for deciding a matter, it would still have to be decided within a reasonable period of time.
The factual position leaves no manner of doubt that the adjudicating authority, despite the specific mandate contained in sub-section (9) of section 28 of the Customs Act to adjudicate the show cause notice within one year, completely failed to discharge the statutory obligation cast upon it. The phrase “where it is possible to do so”, does give a certain degree of flexibility to the adjudicating authority when circumstances are such that make it not possible for the adjudicating authority to decide or there are insurmountable exigencies, but such exceptional circumstances or exigencies do not exist in the present case.
In the present case, it is seen that there was no justifiable reason for the department to place the show cause notice in the call book and thereby delay the adjudication contrary to the specific mandate of sub-section (9) of section 28 of the Customs Act.
Conclusion - i) The phrase 'where it is possible to do so' would only mean that wherever it is not practicable or possible to do a certain act, the period can be extended. The same, however, cannot be an endless period without any plausible justification. ii) The adjudicating authority failed to discharge the statutory obligation cast upon it under section 28 (9) of the Customs Act to adjudicate the show cause notice within one year and no exceptional circumstances existed to justify the delay.
The order dated 19.01.2023 passed by the Principal Commissioner adjudicating the show cause notice dated 31.07.2013 is, accordingly, set aside and the appeal is allowed.
-
2025 (4) TMI 1247
Entitlement for BCD exemption under the notification dated 01.03.2005, as amended by the notification dated 17.03.2012, whereby an 'Explanation' was added - import of digital still image video cameras - interpretation of the scope of Explanation - HELD THAT:- The issue as to whether digital still image video cameras would be entitled to basic customs duty exemption under Notification dated 01.03.2005, as amended by Notification No. 15/2012 dated 17.03.2012, is the issue that was involved in Customs Appeal No. 52218 of 2019 [2024 (6) TMI 1422 - CESTAT NEW DELHI [LB]] and is also the issue involved in the present four Customs Appeals.
Such being the position, the order dated 09.09.2024 passed in Customs Appeal No. 52218 of 2019, following the answer to the reference by the Larger Bench of the Tribunal on 14.06.2024, would govern the issue involved in all the four Customs Appeals. The digital still image video cameras involved in the present Customs Appeals would, therefore, be entitled to exemption from basic customs duty in terms of the Notification dated 01.03.2005, as amended on 17.03.2012.
Conclusion - The 'digital still image video cameras' imported by the appellants are entitled to BCD exemption under Notification No. 25/2005-Cus dated 01.03.2005, as amended by Notification No. 15/2012 dated 17.03.2012.
The order dated 28.10.2016 impugned in all the present four Customs Appeals deserves to be set aside and is set aside - Appeal allowed.
-
2025 (4) TMI 1201
Jurisdiction - proper officers or not - officers of DRI - jurisdiction of Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (DRI) to issue SCN under Section 28 of the Customs Act, 1962 - HELD THAT:- The question as to jurisdiction of DRI officials now stands resolved in the Canon II [2022 (2) TMI 1480 - SC ORDER] decision of the Supreme Court where it was held that 'Applications seeking exemption from filing affidavits are allowed'.
Since the said issue now no longer remains res integra, CESTAT would have to decide the appeals of the Customs Department on merits, in terms of the orders passed in similar matters. Accordingly, Customs Appeal No. C/52942/2015 in CUSAA 62/2025 and Customs Appeal No. C/52578/2015 in CUSAA 63/2025 respectively, are restored before the CESTAT.
Appeal disposed off.
-
2025 (4) TMI 1200
Confiscation of the seized vehicle - redemption fine - penalty - main ground of challenge is that appellant had no prior knowledge about the smuggled nature of the goods - HELD THAT:- The knowledge and mensrea can be ground for challenging the penalties imposed, but cannot be the ground for challenging the confiscation of vehicle. Undisputedly the goods found in the vehicle of were of foreign origin and were illicitly imported in the contravention of the provision of the Custom Act, 1962, hence were smuggled goods. Further the Appellant or the driver of the vehicle on demand was not in position to produce any documents with regards to the licit importation of the said goods - there are no merits in the submission that Appellant or his agent i.e. the driver was not aware of the illicit nature of the goods.
There are no merits in the appeal filed by the Appellant challenging the order of confiscation of vehicle under Section 115 of the Customs Act, 1962. However taking note of the fact that total seizure value of the smuggled goods was about Rs 3,43,000/- and the same have been disposed for Rs 2,24,800/-, the redemption fine imposed for the release of confiscated vehicle to be on higher side and reduce the same to Rs 50,000/-.
Conclusion - i) Confiscation of conveyances used in smuggling is mandatory unless the owner proves lack of knowledge or connivance. ii) Mere lack of knowledge or mens rea may absolve penalty liability but does not affect confiscation liability. iii) Redemption fine must be proportionate and not exceed the market value of smuggled goods.
Appeal partly allowed by reducing the redemption fine to Rs 50,000/-.
-
2025 (4) TMI 1199
Mis-declaration of the quantity of imported goods - violation of provisions of Section 40(4) of the Customs Act, 1962 read with the provisions of Section 111(m) of the Customs Act, 1962 - HELD THAT:- The filing of an appeal itself can be taken as a protest thereby uprooting the consented value which might have been given at the time for taking clearance of goods. Of course, this will be with the caveat that the value which has been consented is contested further, as per law, before the higher Judicial fora.
On the other issue regarding the effect of declaring units and therefore the variation in weight being detected and its consequences, it is found that the decision in the case of NILKAMAL LTD. VERSUS COMMR. OF CUS. (IMPORT), NHAVA SHEVA [2018 (11) TMI 1767 - CESTAT MUMBAI], held that when the goods are in excess for items which are assessable as units and not by weight and excess weight, noticed at the time of physical verification of import by Customs authorities, could not be considered as requiring change in the transaction value disclosed in invoices.
Further, it is also found that Grasim Industries Ltd Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Rajkot [2007 (5) TMI 468 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI] have clearly brought out that weight cannot be considered to be influencing the transaction value. When purchase order was given on per piece basis.
It is also agreed that there is nothing on record to show that there was any excess remittance made for the excess weight which was found at the time of examination in impugned goods which were Proof Machined Low Alloy Steel Shell Belt, Carbon Steel Forged Hemi, Machined Carbon Steel Forged Test Plate. The very nature of the goods indicate that they are sold in the market by units and not by weight.
Conclusion - In the absence of evidence showing remittance above invoice value, the declared transaction value must be accepted. The declared transaction value and quantity as per units should be accepted for customs duty assessment.
Appeal allowed.
-
2025 (4) TMI 1198
Classifictaion of imported goods - software license in paper form imported along with the Distributed Control System (DCS) hardware - to be classified under Customs Tariff Heading (CTH) 8538 9000 or not - applicability and interpretation of Note 2 to Section XVI of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 - HELD THAT:- The admitted facts are Distributive Control Unit AC460 BOT system and the software imported are embedded in the hardware. It is also not in dispute that the software license in paper form is also received along with this hardware. The impugned Order-in-Appeal No.21/2011-Cus dated 31.03.2011 is a common order against Order-in-Original 284/2009 dated 12.10.2009 and No.417/2009 dated 26.12.2009. Both these Order-in-Originals have been considered by Commissioner (Appeals) in Order No.33/2009 dated 30.03.2009 wherein it was held that “the software and the license fees goes hand-in-hand and are classifiable together, the software to be classified along with the hardware and the claim of the appellant under CTH 4907 or 8523 was rejected”. Accordingly, the impugned order confirmed the classification of the software paper license as part of hardware under 8538 9000.
The decision relied upon by the Original Authorities based on which the Commissioner (Appeals) also confirmed the demands was set aside by this Tribunal in [2019 (9) TMI 80 - CESTAT BANGALORE]. The case before the Tribunal was regarding classification of software under CTH 49 or 8524 which attracted ‘Nil’ rate of duty are to be classified under CTH 8471 and it was held that 'the CBEC has also clarified vide Circular 15/2011 that documents conveying the right to use software do not merit classification under CTH 8523 8020 but merits classification under CTH 4907.'
Conclusion - There are no reason to uphold the classification of the software license in paper form under CTH 8538 9000.
Appeal allowed.
-
2025 (4) TMI 1197
Levy of Custom duty - appellant have cleared the imported goods under Release order issued against DEPB Scrips by the DGFT - HELD THAT:- The entire argument of the Learned Counsel is that since the DEPB Scrips and/or Release Advice has not been cancelled by the DGFT the same stand valid and import thereunder cannot be questioned. In these circumstances, it is found that the case of the department is that the DEPB Scrips was obtained fraudulently therefore any import made on that basis cannot be extended the benefit of duty free clearance under DEPB Scheme. However, despite the direction from this Tribunal, the Revenue could not produce the status report of the DEPB license/release advice issued there under.
Therefore, the matter needs to be remanded to the adjudicating authority for ascertaining status of DEPB License/release advice issued by DGFT and thereafter to pass a fresh order on all the issues.
Appeal allowed by way of remand.
-
2025 (4) TMI 1123
Classification of imported goods - Poly Crystalline Silicon (C-Si), Solar Photovoltaic Modules (Solar Modules) - to be classified under CTH 85414011 or under CTH 8501 of the Customs Tariff Act? - it was held by CESTAT that 'The Solar Panel imported by the Appellants merit classification under CTH 8541 and as a result the impugned orders in the captioned Appeals are set aside.'
HELD THAT:- There are no merit in the present appeal. Hence, the appeal is dismissed.
-
2025 (4) TMI 1122
Challenge to SCN and order in original on the ground of time limitation - fraudulent claims under the Duty Drawback Scheme - contention of Petitioner is that the exports dated back to 2013-15 and the impugned SCNs have been issued only in 2021 - HELD THAT:- The impugned SCNs have been issued based on documents recovered from the Petitioner as also received from the Delhi Chamber of Commerce. For eg., in the invoice related to the export of soccer balls/ sports goods, the two recovered parallel invoices placed on record prima facie, reveal the manner in which the goods were being over-valued by the Petitioner - the two invoices, the same product, i.e., inflated soccer balls made of Polyurethane, are valued at 0.36 USD in one invoice and 9.70 USD in the other. This, in essence, shows an overvaluation of the product to the tune of approximately 27 times the original value i.e., an increase of 2700%(approx.). The total value of the invoice with the original price is 2176 USD whereas the value of the invoice with the over-valued price is 56,032 USD.
There is no doubt that the former set of invoices was submitted to the Delhi Chamber of Commerce, and the latter set was filed to the Department. The difference might have come to the notice of the Department much later after the assessment was conducted. Accordingly, the issuance of the impugned SCN cannot be held to be barred by limitation.
Rule 16 of the Drawback Rules does not prescribe any limitation, the Court is of the opinion that in the absence of a prescribed period of limitation being provided by the statute, the general limitation period of three years cannot be presumed to apply by default, especially when there are strong suspicions as to the fraudulent availment of duty drawbacks and knowledge of such availment is acquired much later.
It is relevant to note that this Court in YOGENDRA SINGH BALYAN VERSUS UNION OF INDIA & ORS. [2025 (3) TMI 752 - DELHI HIGH COURT], in fact, relegated the co-noticee to avail the statutory appellate remedy. Further, the Coordinate Bench of this Court in Commr. of Customs v. Sans Frontiers, [2023 (12) TMI 695 - DELHI HIGH COURT] where a similar issue of limitation under Rule 16 of the Duty Drawback Rules was raised, the Court had relegated the case on the ground that there was an alternate remedy that remained un-exhausted.
Considering that the co-noticee has been relegated to the appellate remedy, this Court is of the opinion that, though the exercise of writ jurisdiction in favour of the Petitioner may not be warranted, the Petitioner ought not to be denied the opportunity to avail the statutory remedy on grounds of parity - the Petitioner is also permitted to avail of the appellate remedy under Section 128 of the Customs Act, 1962.
Conclusion - The availability of an efficacious statutory appellate remedy under Section 128 of the Customs Act militates against the exercise of writ jurisdiction under Article 226 in such matters, particularly where the Petitioner failed to contest the allegations on merits during the SCN proceedings.
Petition disposed off.
-
2025 (4) TMI 1121
Refund of IGST paid manually through TR6 challans in respect of import duties paid under the Customs Act, 1962 - refund sought on the ground that there is no provision to take credit of IGST paid manually through TR6 challans, as TR6 challan is not a specified document under Rule 36 of CGST Rules - HELD THAT:- This very issue had come up before the Coordinate Bench of this Tribunal at Chennai in the appellant's own case, wherein the Bench, vide Final Order No. A/40158- 40177/2022 dated 06.05.2022 [2022 (5) TMI 394 - CESTAT CHENNAI], inter alia, held that the appellant is not eligible to claim refund under Section 142(3) of the CGST Act, 2017.
Similar decision was also given by Chennai Bench in the case of Servo Packaging Ltd. Vs CGST & CE, Puducherry [2020 (2) TMI 353 - CESTAT CHENNAI]. In other words, in the above cases, it was held that if any amount in respect of CVD and SAD is paid on account of nonfulfilment of export obligation, the same cannot be claimed as refund under Section 142(3) of the CGST Act, 2017.
The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of UOI Vs COSMO Films Ltd [2023 (5) TMI 42 - SUPREME COURT] has taken note of this lacuna and thereby, issued directions to CBIC to take corrective measures. CBIC in its Circular No.16/2023-Cus dt.07.06.2023, prescribed the procedure for payments to be made under Sec 28(1)(b), which has only prospective impact. Therefore, no any benefit to appellants by this circular.
Conclusion - The appellants are not entitled to refund of IGST paid via manual TR6 challans under the existing statutory framework and procedural requirements.
Appeal dismissed.
-
2025 (4) TMI 1101
Seeking for quashment of the complaint filed under Section 200 of the Code of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - smuggling of foreign made cigarettes in the guise of importing of electronic goods and computer parts - competent authority to grant sanction of prosecution - limitation in terms of Section 468 Cr.P.C/corresponding Section 514 of BNSS - maintainability of filing of the complaint case now beyond a period of three years.
Value of the alleged smuggled goods being less than Rs. 2 crores in terms of Circular of the Customs Department dated 16.08.2022, the prosecution is liable to be dropped - HELD THAT:- On reading Clause 3.1(ii) it will clearly indicate that the Circular so far as the sanction for prosecution in respect of goods notified under Section 123 of the Act, the threshold value of the products have to be not more than Rs. 50.00 lakhs and it is Clause 3.1 which would be applicable in the case of the petitioners and not Clause 3.2. In the opinion of this Bench, Clause 3.2 is in relation to importation of trade goods which can be brought within the ambit of appraising cases where the importer makes certain willful mis-declaration in respect of the value as also in respect of the description of the goods, which is not attracted in the instant case. The petitioners herein have tried to import foreign made cigarettes worth more than Rs. 74.00 lakhs in the guise of importing electronic and computer parts. Thus, the contention of the petitioners that Clause 3.2 of the said Circular being attracted is not sustainable and the same is rejected.
Additional Director General who has granted sanction for prosecution was competent authority or not - HELD THAT:- The learned Senior Standing Counsel for the Department drew the attention of this Court to the Circular dated 23.10.2015, whereby it has been explained in very categorical terms in Clause 4.6 and 7.1, both of which are reproduced hereunder to find that the Additional Director General also is one of the competent authorities who has been permitted to grant sanction except in respect of certain category of cases which stands covered under Clause 4.2.1.2 and 4.2.2 - The present case, therefore, does not fall under Clause 4.2.1.2 and 4.2.2. Hence, the said ground of the petitioners also is not sustainable and is answered in the negative.
The filing the complaint case in August, 2023 is barred by limitation in terms of Section 468 Cr.P.C/corresponding Section 514 of BNSS - HELD THAT:- The petitioners have been prosecuted in addition to the offence under Section 132, also for the offences punishable under Section 135(1)(a) and 135(1) (b) of the Act and the same are punishable under Section 135(1)(i) (B) & (C) where the punishment may be extended up to seven years with fine. Keeping that in view, on reading Section 468 Cr.P.C.,/corresponding Section 514 of BNSS, it would reflect that the period of limitation prescribed for an offence is only up till three years and that there is no limitation provided for an offence with a sentence of more than three years and as such the said period of limitation as is prescribed under Section 468(a) Cr.P.C.,/corresponding Section 514 of BNSS would not be applicable in the instant case.
Conclusion - No strong case is made out by the petitioners calling for interference to the prosecution case initiated by the complainant/the respondent department. Nonetheless, insofar as criminal case having been instituted against the petitioners, the right of the petitioners to avail appropriate legal recourse available to them under the provisions of Cr.P.C.,/BNSS would be still left open.
Petition dismissed.
-
2025 (4) TMI 1100
Liability to pay interest on the delayed payment of Integrated Goods and Services Tax (IGST) on imported goods - IGST paid after being pointed out by Directorate General of Revenue Intelligence (DRI) - submission of the appellant is that IGST levied on goods which are imported is an additional duty of Customs and therefore, the judgment in Mahindra and Mahindra [2023 (8) TMI 135 - SC ORDER] would apply - HELD THAT:- Additional duty of Customs is levied on the act of importation or the act of exportation under the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 in exercise of the powers under Article 246 read with entry 83 of List I (Union List) of the Seventh Schedule to the Constitution. IGST is levied on the supply in the course of imports under section 3 of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 read with Section 5 of the IGST Act in exercise of the powers under Article 269 of the Constitution. While Additional duty of Customs gets credited to the Consolidated Fund of India and the divisible pool of tax revenues divided between the States and Union as per the recommendations of the Finance Commission, IGST does not get credited to the Consolidated Fund of India and gets divided between the State and Union as decided by the Parliament on the recommendations of the GST Council.
Whatever rate of tax and interest apply to IGST in the course of inter-state trade also apply to supplies in the course of imports. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that in this case, the Commissioner did not apply the rate of duty applicable under section 50 of the CGST Act as made applicable to IGST through section 20 of the IGST Act. Instead, he confirmed interest as applicable under section 28AB of the Customs Act. It is his submission that for that reason alone, the demand of interest needs to be set aside.
The appellant is correct in his submissions that interest was calculated as per the rates applicable under section 28AB.
Conclusion - If there is delay in payment of IGST, interest as per Section 50 of the CGST Act, 2017 is payable. There is no reason to treat IGST paid on goods supplied in the course of international trade differently than the IGST paid on inter-state supply of goods. This matter deserves to be remanded to the Commissioner to re-determine the interest payable as applicable to the IGST.
Appeal is allowed by way of remand.
-
2025 (4) TMI 1099
Suspension of the Customs Broker Licence No. R-308/CHA of the appellant under Regulation 19(1) of the Customs Broker Licensing Regulations, 2013 (CBLR, 2013) - forgery and failure to supervise employees properly - HELD THAT:- In view of the Orders of the Hon’ble High Court of Madras dated 03.01.2020 [2020 (2) TMI 175 - MADRAS HIGH COURT], both the impugned orders i.e., suspension order dated 09.06.2015 and the Order-in-Original (order of continuation of the suspension) dated 02.07.2015 have been quashed, and so the appeals have become infructuous and need to be closed.
-
2025 (4) TMI 1077
Maintainability of petition - availability of alternative remedy of appeal - Classification of imported goods - Solar Heat Strengthen Glass for Solar PV Modules - to be classified under CTH 70071900 or not - HELD THAT:- This petition need not be entertained as there is alternative efficacious remedy provided under section 128 of the Act. The petitioner is required to file appeal challenging the impugned final assessment of Bill of Entry before the appellate authority under section 128 of the Act.
Whether the goods imported by the petitioner under description “Solar Heat Strengthen Glass for Solar PV Modules” was ‘textured/tempered glass’ is a mater of disputed question of fact more particularly when the petitioner has classified the goods under CTH 70071900 depending upon the verification of the goods imported by the petitioner. Merely because similar goods imported by the petitioner have been classified as ‘Solar Heat Strengthen Glass’ in place of “Textured/Tempered Glass’ or vice versa, it cannot substitute the degree of proof required to hold that the present consignment or for that matter, all the different consignments of the petitioner are “Solar Heat Strengthen Glass” and not “Textured/Tempered Glass” be considered in absence of case records which would be available with the appellate authority.
It is refrained from exercising extraordinary powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India as the contention raised by the petitioner that there is no jurisdictional fact before the respondents to assume jurisdiction which requires this Court to exercise powers under Article 226 as the facts on record, as pleaded by the petitioner along with documents are required to be adjudicated under section 128 of the Act.
Conclusion - This petition need not be entertained as there is alternative efficacious remedy provided under section 128 of the Act. The petitioner is required to file appeal challenging the impugned final assessment of Bill of Entry before the appellate authority under section 128 of the Act.
Petition dismissed.
-
2025 (4) TMI 1076
Rejection of conversion of 698 shipping bills from Advance Authorisation Scheme to Draw Back Scheme - reason for rejection is that respondent applied for conversion beyond the period of three months from the date of Let Export Order (LEO) - HELD THAT:- Since the Gujarat High Court in MESSRS MAHALAXMI RUBTECH LTD. VERSUS UNION OF INDIA [2021 (3) TMI 240 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT] has held that the impugned circular to the extent of paragraph 3(a) is ultra vires Articles 14 and 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India, as also ultra vires Section 149 of the Customs Act, 1962, the question of the Commissioner or the Original Authority relying on the said provision in the circular does not arise.
The remaining 104 shipping bills shall be reconsidered by the Original Authority and an order shall be passed on merits and in accordance with law within 12 weeks from today. Before passing an order, personal hearing be also given to IOCL - appeal dismissed.
............
|
9911796707
