|
Advanced Search Options
Customs - Case Laws
Showing 21 to 40 of 139 Records
-
2016 (5) TMI 1193 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD
Confiscation in lieu of redemption fine and imposition of penalty - Section 114A of the Customs Act, 1962 - Mis-declaration of description of imported goods - Zinc Ash” as “Zinc Dross” - No intention to evade duty - Held that:- the goods imported are Zinc Ash and not Zinc Dross. Therefore, mis-declaration of the description of the goods and non-eligibility for import of the goods under the advance licence mentioned in the Bill of Entry is established. Therefore, we do not find any reason to interfere with the impugned order of the Commissioner of Customs, Kandla. However, we do find that the Adjudicating authority has not extended the benefit of 25% penalty, which the appellants are eligible for as per Section 114A of the Customs Act, 1962. The Appellants are eligible for the same even at the appellate stage as per the decision of the Hon’ble Gujrat High Court in the case of CCE Vs Harish Silk Mills [2010 (2) TMI 494 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT] and CCE Vs G.P.Presstress Concrete Works [2012 (8) TMI 933 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT]. We, therefore, extend the said benefit to the Appellants subject to fulfillment of conditions thereof. The impugned order is upheld with the above modification. - Decided partly in favour of appellant
-
2016 (5) TMI 1192 - CESTAT NEW DELHI
Jurisdiction - Whether the show-cause notice issued by DRI for recovery of erroneously granted drawback in terms of Rule 16 of Customs and Central Excise and Service Tax Drawback Rules, 1995 can be held valid show-cause notice - Held that:- in the case of Era International v. Union of India [2011 (8) TMI 885 - Punjab and Haryana High Court] wherein the Hon'ble Punjab and Haryana High Court following the decision in the case of CC Vs. Sayed Ali [2011 (2) TMI 5 - Supreme Court] has held that the preventive office cannot be the proper officer for issuance of show-cause notice to seize the goods. As no such amendment was made under Rule 16 of Customs and Central Excise and Service Tax Drawback Rules, 1995 in respect of issuance of show-cause notice. In fact, the amendment dated 6.7.2011 was made only in section 28 was retrospective with effect from 16.9.2011 and the circular CBEC dated 31.5.2011 was only for the amendment limited for proper officer under Rule 16 of Customs and Central Excise and Service Tax Drawback Rules, 1995. The said circular did not consider that the DRI officers are to be the proper officers under Rule 16 of Customs and Central Excise and Service Tax Drawback Rules, 1995 but as no retrospective amendment carried out in the said rule so far as conformation of jurisdiction by DRI officers for issuance of show-cause notice is concerned, therefore, the DRI officers have no jurisdiction to issue show-cause notice for recovery of erroneously drawback claim under Rule 16 of Customs and Central Excise and Service Tax Drawback Rules, 1995.
Demand of duty and imposition of penalty - Section 114 of the Customs Act, 1962 - - Fraudulent export of bicycle parts under export execution (sic : promotion) scheme like drawback DEPB etc. - Availed excess drawback claim erroneously - Held that:- the impugned goods was examined at the port of shipment and no single discrepancy was detected in regard to description, quality, quantity or value of the goods. All the consignments were examined found to be correct and the goods were assessed, thereafter let export order was issued. Further, it is found that no incriminating documents found by DRI during the course of search at the residence of various partners or the officers of the appellants. The only allegation against the appellant is that the Consulate General of India at Dubai has given report showing that only small fraction of iron was auctioned by Dubai DHS 31000 equivalent to ₹ 3,10,000/-. It was also found that out of 3 merchants/financiers only one company was not found at the address. The allegation of the Revenue is that the goods overvalued as the goods have been examined at the end of the supplier also. Therefore, it cannot be alleged that the goods were undervalued in the absence of contemporaneous price for the purpose of like kind of goods.
I further find that the Revenue is heavily relied on the statement of Shri Navdeep Goyal representative of shipping agency but he was not made available for cross-examination. Therefore, the said statement cannot be relied on. During the course of investigation, it was found that the appellant exported bicycles parts which were procured from various suppliers who processed the bicycles parts. There is no single evidence on record to show that the appellant has manufactured/ used sub standard raw materials and all the suppliers have admitted that they have provided goods to the appellants. The appellant is a regular supplier/exported various other consignments of bicycles parts of similar nature. No departmental officers were alleged that having conspiracy with the appellants and there is verification report is on record. Therefore, in the absence of any supportive evidence except the report from the Consulate General of India at Dubai which is also not conclusive. In the absence of any such supportive evidence, it cannot be alleged that the appellant has availed excess drawback claim erroneously. Therefore, I do agree for setting aside the demand on merits. - Decided in favour of appellant with consequential relief
-
2016 (5) TMI 1116 - AUTHORITY FOR ADVANCE RULINGS
Classification - Parts of Hydraulic Cylinders, i.e. ‘Cylinders’ and ‘Çylinder Barrels’ - Whether to be classifiable under tariff item 8412 90 30 or 8412 90 90 of the CTA - Revenue has no objection to the admission of the matter - Held that:- as the applicant pointed out that the Revenue in its reply has accepted the classification in the Tariff Items 8412 – Other engine and motors; 841290 – Parts; 8412 90 30 – of hydraulic engines & motors; 8412 90 90 for the Other. Therefore, there is no point in proceeding with the hearings of the application. The learned counsel has conveyed its satisfaction on the classification given by the Revenue. - Matter disposed of
-
2016 (5) TMI 1115 - SC ORDER
Classification - Whether the goods to be classified as “Compact Media Centre” or “K-Yan Computer Systems” - Tribunal categorizes the goods as “K-Yan Computer Systems - Apex Court viewed that the Tribunal's decision was based on cogent material and does not call for any interference - Apex Court dismissed the revenue's appeal
-
2016 (5) TMI 1114 - GOVERNMENT OF INDIA
Confiscation of goods absolutely - Non-entitlement to redemption fine - Seizure of smuggled 1000 gms imported gold - walked through the green channel at the airport without made declaration - Held that:- since the respondent was not eligible to import gold and that too undeclared and in a substantial quantity, the same cannot be treated as bona fide baggage in terms of section 79. The said gold is imported in violation of the Foreign trade Policy; provisions of section 3(3) and 11(1) of foreign Trade (Development & Regulation) Act, 1962. Government holds that impugned goods constitute “prohibited goods” liable to confiscation under section 111(d) and (I) of the Customs Act,1962.
Government finds that the plea is in order keeping in view the conduct of the applicant in not declaring the impugned goods and attempting to pass through the green channel. It is fact on record that even when questioned by officers whether he has any gold or contraband its, he answered in the negative had the applicant desired to import the gold as an eligible passenger, he ought to have approached the Customs and made the requisite declaration. Therefore, government upholds the Department’s contention that absolute confiscation is legally warranted.
Whether passenger is a carrier of the impugned goods or not - Held that:- Government finds no merit in the contention of both the Commissioner (Appeals) and the respondent on the ground that the passenger is a carrier is not part of Show cause Notice and, therefore, cannot be raised at a later stage. The subsequent claim of the respondent that the gold of his roommates also belonged to him as they owed money to him is clearly an afterthought. He had already admitted in his voluntary statement that only part of the gold belonged to him and rest had been carried for this roommates for a monetary consideration. Government also notes that the statement recorded before the Customs officers is valid evidence.
Government further finds that the provision for re-export of baggage is available under Section 80 of the Customs Act, 1962. However, this Section is applicable only to cases of bonfire baggage declared to Customs, which the applicant failed to do, thus the applicant is not eligible for re-export of impugned goods. Therefore, in view of various decisions the order of Commissioner (Appeals) allowing the request of the respondent for re-export of goods is not legal and proper and cannot be allowed. Government also finds no force in the plea of the respondent that the confiscation of the impugned goods is not valid as any Show Cause Notice for confiscation of the goods is to be issued under Section 124 only and present notice mentions 111 (d) & (I), as the Show Cause Notice clearly mentions in the beginning and in the concluding para that is issued under Section 124 of the customs Act, 1962. Therefore, the Commissioner (Appeals) has erred in allowing re-export of the impugned goods on payment of redemption fine. - Decided in favour of revenue
-
2016 (5) TMI 1113 - CESTAT BANGALORE
Classification and eligibility to the benefit of Notification - Import of chemicals of various descriptions declared them as Pharmaceutical Reference Standards (PRS) classifying the same under Customs Tariff Heading No.38 22 00 90 - claimed benefit of Notification No.21/2002-Cus. dated 1.3.2002 and Notification No.12/2002-Cus. dated 17.3.2012 - Duty demanded alongwith interest and imposition of penalty
Held that:- it is found that the appellant had shown that the imported products, which had label and certificate of analysis from United State Pharmacopoeia convention indicating that Pharmaceutical Reference Standards is as per the standard laid down by them. It has to be noted that Pharmaceutical Reference Standards which are accompanied by the certificate issued by US Pharmacopoeia are distinctive product and gets classified under laboratory chemical or under Chapter Heading 3822 read with Chapter Notes of Chapter 38 as reproduced herein above. The conclusion that can be reached is that Pharmaceutical Reference Standard cannot be classified as certified Reference Materials and consequently not extending the scope of applicability of notification to products other than covered under Chapter Heading 28 and Chapter 29 is also not applicable.
The adjudicating authority has come to a conclusion that Pharmaceutical Reference Standard can be classified under Chapter Heading 38 22 as well but denied the benefit of Notification of reduced rate of duty only on the ground that the appellant has not passed the conditions of Chapter Note 2A and not produced documents required under the said exemption Notification to avail the benefit. As already reproduced by us, the condition of Notification only requires that the certificate of Physician Reference Samples are issued by an organization accepted by the International Standard Organisation. In the documents produced before us, we find that the US Pharmacopoeia convention is recognized by International Standard Organisation in respect of the quality of the goods and the systems which they are following. As there is no dispute that the products imported being classified under Chapter Heading 3822, Revenue having not filed any appeal against the adjudicating authority's order by holding that the product imported are classifiable under Chapter Heading 3822, we have to draw adverse inference that Revenue has accepted that the Pharmaceutical Reference Samples are classifiable under 38 22. In our considered view, if the products are classifiable under Chapter Heading 38 22, benefit of exemption Notification cannot be denied to the appellant as per the facts in this case, and it is accepted that the goods which are imported are nothing but Pharmaceutical Reference Standard.
Applying the World Health Organisation's definition of Reference Standard to the products imported by appellant, it has to be held that imported products are Pharmaceutical Reference Standards, are squarely covered by the benefit of Notification as these Reference Standards imported by the appellants from U.S. Pharmacopoeia Convention or other Pharmacopoeia Convention are for the use of their clients either in the manufacturing of bulk drugs or consumption of bulk drugs.
Period of limitation - Held that:- it is found that the adjudicating authority has also not accepted the limitation aspect on the findings that the appellant had not produced any of the documents before the authorities while seeking clearances of the goods by claiming benefit of Notification. In our view this approach of the adjudicating authority on the point of limitation seems to be not in consonance with the law. It is undisputed that the bills of entry which are filed by appellant indicated these items as 'Pharmaceutical Reference Standards' and all the relevant documents for clearance of goods were filed with the authorities, at the time of clearance of goods; which was accepted by the department, hence they permitted clearance on final assessment by extending benefit of notification. In our view Revenue cannot today say that appellant had suppressed the facts with intention to avail ineligible benefit of Notification. It was for the Assessing Officers to seek further clarification on the matter, if they find that the appellant had claimed ineligible benefit of Notification. In all probability the Assessing Officers when they cleared the consignments were of the view that the appellant is eligible for the benefit of Notification as the goods imported were Pharmaceutical Reference Standard. Therefore, the demand for the duty liability is not sustainable and is liable to be set aside. Since we are holding that the duty liability is not sustainable, the question of imposing any penalties on main appellant or other appellants does not arise. - Decided in favour of appellant with consequential relief
-
2016 (5) TMI 1112 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD
Imposition of redemption fine and penalty - Misdeclaration of goods - Import of Heavy Melting Scrap and Re-Rollable Scrap - out of 699.34 MT declared as Heavy Melting Scrap, 81.030 MT was found to be Re-Rollable scrap instead of Heavy Melting Scrap - Differential duty paid before issuance of show cause notice - Held that:- in the international market, the goods are sold as “Used Iron Material” or “Scrap” without any distinction as HMS or Re-Rollable Scrap and therefore there could be small proportion of re-rollable scrap in HMS. The duty is on transaction value. There is no license violation also. The assessee has filed the Bill of Entry in accordance with the documents and subjected the goods to Customs examination before assessment. Under such circumstances, there is force in the argument of the Appellant that the Bill of Entry should have been assessed on the basis of examination of the goods by Customs Officers and at best, differential duty only be demanded from the assessee. Confiscation of the goods, Redemption fine and penalty are not warranted and would amount to too harsh a measure. Therefore, confiscation, Redemption fine and penalty ordered in the adjudication order cannot be sustained. - Decided in favour of appellant
-
2016 (5) TMI 1107 - DELHI HIGH COURT
Import of 'energy gel' and 'energy chews' - There are two broad issues that arise in this petition. The first concerns the question whether proprietary foods are outside the purview of the FSS Act, the FSS Regulations 2011 and the FSS Packaging Regulations 2011. The second issue is whether on the facts of the present case, the Petitioner can be said to have complied with the FSS Packaging Regulations 2011. - Held that:- The main object of the FSS Act is to lay down “science based standards for articles of food and to regulate their manufacture, storage, distribution, sale and import, to ensure availability of safe and wholesome food for human consumption.” The word ‘food’ has been defined under Section 2 (1) (j) of the FSS Act to include any substance, whether processed, partially processed or unprocessed intended for human consumption. It includes a variety of substances. The expression ‘food additive’ has been separately defined under Section 2 (1) (k) of the FSS Act.
Importer is required to mandatorily comply with the labelling requirements in terms of the FSS Regulations and FSS Packaging Regulations.
Although the Petitioner admitted to having affixed labels on the master boxes after they arrived in India, it is evident from the affidavit of the Customs authorities and the letter of the CWC that neither of them gave any permission to the Petitioner to do so. Further, it is evident that the FSSAI also permitted the affixation of the labels on imported food articles only to a limited extent.
Commissioner of Customs will initiate an inquiry into the affixation of labels in the present case by the Petitioner on the master boxes after they arrived in India, and while they were at the CWC warehouse, without the permission of either the Customs or the CWC. The purpose of the enquiry would be ascertain where and how the lapses occurred, and what action requires to be taken against those involved including the importer and his CHA and other employees as well as officers/employees of the Customs and/or CWC. The enquiry will be completed within a period of three months from today. Appropriate action in terms thereof will be taken against all those found responsible for the lapse. - Decided against the petitioners.
-
2016 (5) TMI 1106 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Levy of CVD on import of silk fabrics - (i) Whether the imported goods are eligible for claiming benefits under the Central Excise Exemption Notification No.030/2004 dated 9.7.2004 when there was no compliance of the conditions as contemplated under the said Notification? and (ii) Whether the Central Excise General Exemption Notification No.030/2004 dated 9.7.2004 is applicable only for the indigenously manufactured goods or even for the imported goods manufactured abroad? - Held that:- in the absence of any material to show that the processes indicated above would involve inputs, none of which would attract duty of excise, it is not possible to conclude that the first respondent would satisfy both conditions namely (a) payment of duty on the inputs and (b) the non availing of CENVAT credit on the same. Though the Notification bearing No.030/2004 dated 9.7.2004 does not stipulate the first condition, we have held that the first condition is inbuilt into the second condition. Therefore, the first respondent cannot be taken to have fulfilled the condition stipulated in the proviso to the Notification No.030/2004 dated 9.7.2004, unless he had shown that in the entire process of manufacture of woven silk fabrics falling under Tariff Item No.5007, there are no inputs (used directly or indirectly and whether found in the final product or not), which attract any levy of duty under tariff items relevant to those inputs.
In cases where the exemption Notification stipulates two conditions, namely that the inputs should have suffered duty and that no CENVAT credit should have been availed, then the benefit of the Notification will be available only if both conditions are satisfied. An importer will never be able to satisfy both these conditions and hence, he cannot claim the benefit. - Decided in favor of revenue.
-
2016 (5) TMI 1063 - CESTAT KOLKATA
Penalty under Sec 114 of the Customs Act 1962 - Held that:- As observed from case records that Sec 112 (a) of the Customs Act 1962 has been mentioned for imposing penalty in the SCN but Adjudicating authority has imposed penalty under Sec 114 without giving any justification/opportunity to the appellant as to why suddenly penalty under Sec 114 was imposed. A corrigendum was required to be issued to effect the change & principles of natural justice were required to be followed if adjudicating authority was of the opinion that Sec 112 (a) of the CA 1962 is not the correct Section applicable in the instant case. By not giving any such opportunity or following corrective procedure, Adjudicating authority has gone beyond the scope of show cause notice which is not permissible as per case laws relied upon by the appellant, which also include ratios laid down by Apex Court.
Nowhere in the records it is coming out that appellant was required to supervise 100% stuffing & examination of the cartoons in the containers. Even if there was some negligence on the part of the appellant the same has been taken care of by departmental proceedings and no penalty could be imposed under the Customs Act 1962 as per the relied upon case laws. There is also no evidence on record that appellant was aware that second hand used clothes are being exported & that quantities actually being exported are much less than the quantities declared in the shipping bill. No statement has been brought on record indicating knowledge/connivance of the appellant regarding misdeclaration in the assessment documents.
It is observed from the language of Sec 113 of the Customs Act 1962 and the case records that appellant was not required to make any entry/declaration in the shipping bill. Once he is not required to make any entry/declaration in the shipping bill then appellant cannot be visited with penalty under Sec 114 of the Customs Act 1962. - Decided in favour of assessee.
-
2016 (5) TMI 1062 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD
Review of application - mistake apparent on the record - Power of Tribunal to such review - Held that:- as it is evident, the ROM application is seeking the Tribunal to reopen the hearing of the appeal and to examine and re-appreciate the evidences and legal issues, which would amount to review of its own order, which is not permitted under the law by applying the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CCE, Belapur, Mumbai vs. RDC Concrete (India) Pvt. Limited [2011 (8) TMI 25 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA]. Therefore, the subject ROM cannot sustain. - Decided against the appellant
-
2016 (5) TMI 1061 - CESTAT BANGALORE
Revokation of CHA licence - Whether the grant of G Card to Shri Naresh Makwana amounts to sub-letting of licence by the present broker so as to hold contravention of Regulation 10 against him - Held that:- when the law itself permits engaging a G Card holder for running an extended office of the CHA at any other place then the place of appellant's commissionerate and when such G card holder stands engaged, by following the due processes of law and with the knowledge and consent of the Customs authorities, it cannot be held to be sub-letting of the licence. Inasmuch as the said ground is the only ground adopted by the Commissioner for revoking the licence in question and having held that appointment of a G card holder does not amount to subletting of the licence, the impugned order is not sustainable and set aside.
Also the appellant has been completely out of his business and losing his earnings and livelihood for about last three months on account of revocation of his licence (which has also been a punishment for him) and when there was no mens rea involved on the part of the appellant in mis-use of the licence in Mumbai and the decisions pronounced by the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Shri Venkatesh Shipping Services Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Union of India [2012 (9) TMI 425 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT], the present appellant deserves restoration of his Customs Broker Licence.
Forfeiture of security - Held that:- there is nothing on record to arrive at the conclusion that Shri Naresh Makhwana paid ₹ 35,000/- per month to the appellant as consideration for sub-letting his license. There is no document evidencing the sub-let or the payment or promise to pay monthly consideration. The bank account of Shri Naresh Makhwana or the appellant have not been placed on record to show that there was any such monthly payment made by Shri Naresh Makhwana to appellant. Not even a single instance of payment of ₹ 35,000/- is proved. Thus the retracted statement of the appellant is not corroborated by any independent evidence. The department has failed to establish the flow of consideration from Shri Naresh Makhwana to appellant and the sub-let of license. The Hon'ble Member(Technical) has ordered forfeiture of security on the finding that there is subletting of license and that appellant violated Regulation 10 of Customs Brokers License Regulations, 2013 but I disagree with the view of Member (Technical). On this point, I agree with the Member(Judicial) that the revocation of license and forfeiture of security amount has to be set aside in toto and the appeal has to be allowed fully. - Decided in favour of appellant with consequential relief
-
2016 (5) TMI 1060 - CESTAT NEW DELHI
Period of limitation - non-maintainance of time limit in terms of Regulation 22 of CHALR, 2004 - Revokation of CHA licence and forfeiture of security deposit - clearance of undeclared high value items and also several discrepancies in the description as well as quantity of goods imported - Delay of more than one year in completion of enquiry - Held that:- the decision of Hon’ble High Court of Mumbai in A.M. Ahamed & Co. Vs. CC (Imports), Chennai [2014 (9) TMI 237 - MADRAS HIGH COURT] is applicable to the facts of the present case on both the grounds of time limit as well as implication of settlement of case by the main importer. It is found that Hon’ble High court of Madras in a recent order in Saro International Pvt. System Vs. C.C. [2015 (12) TMI 1432 - MADRAS HIGH COURT] after detailed examination of various decided cases held that the time limit prescribed in CBLR 2013 are to be strictly followed by the authorities taking action under the said Regulation. It is also found that there is a substantial delay of more than a year in completion of the enquiry and also in issue of the present impugned order. Therefore, the delay which is beyond the prescribed limits of CHALR / CBLR will make the impugned order legally unsustainable. The various decisions including the ones cited above are clear about legal position. - Decided in favour of appellant
-
2016 (5) TMI 1059 - CESTAT BANGALORE
Pre- deposit - Non- deposit of mandatory requirement of deposit of 7.5%/10% - Demand in terms of amended provisions of Section 129E of the Customs Act, 1962 - Held that:- the issue of pre-deposit stands finally decided by the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Anjani Technoplast Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs [2015 (10) TMI 2446 - DELHI HIGH COURT] and Hon’ble Allahabad High Court in the case of Ganesh Yadav Vs. Union of India [2015 (7) TMI 304 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT]. As against the above decisions, the appellants have not put on record any decision of the Division Bench or any other judgement supporting their stand that pre-deposit is not required. Consequently there is no sufficient force in the appellants’ stand that the deposits are not required to be made. - Decided against the appellant
-
2016 (5) TMI 1058 - CESTAT NEW DELHI
Revokation of CHA licence, forfeiture of security deposit and imposition of penalty - Regulation 22 of the CBLR, 2013 - exporters attempted to claim huge amount of drawback by resorting to over valuation - Held that:- we really fail to find out any lapses on the part of the CB so as to impose him with a lifelong ban from conducting the business. By referring to the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi’s order in the case of Ashiana Cargo services Vs Commissioner of Customs [2014 (3) TMI 562 - DELHI HIGH COURT], vide which the minority order of the Tribunal was upheld by setting aside the majority order. The said decision of the Delhi High Court further stands approved by the Hon’ble Supreme Court reported in [2015 (8) TMI 435 - SUPREME COURT]. Also it is found that in the case of Rajiv Suri Vs. CCE New Delhi, Tribunal has set aside the order of suspension on the ground that there was favourable findings of the Commissioner (A) in respect of penalty imposed upon the CHA under the Customs Act. Therefore, the impugned order is required to be set aside and also revocation of his license, the order of forfeiture of the deposit made by him and the penalty imposed are set aside. - Decided in favour of appellant with consequential relief
-
2016 (5) TMI 1042 - DELHI HIGH COURT
Seeking release of bank guarantee - furnished at the time of provisional release of goods - Consignment seized - Mis-declaration and under-invoicing under Panchnama - Fine and penalty deposited - Respondent stated that he is not sure whether any writ petition has been filed challenging the orders of the Customs and Central Excise Settlement Commission - Held that:- the said lack of information should not lead to an adjournment as this Court only intends to direct the respondent to dispose of petitioner’s representation by way of a speaking order within one week. - Petition disposed of
-
2016 (5) TMI 1041 - DELHI HIGH COURT
Seeking cross-examination of two persons whose statements were relied upon while issuing the SCN - Cross-examination denied by the order that "there is no such direction in the above referred order of Hon’ble High Court of Delhi and also the same was also never sought by you at the time of adjudication proceedings held earlier in the said matter.” - Held that:- the reason given is plainly untenable apart from the fact that the AC who passed the above order is not the AA himself. It is pointed out by the Respondents that the order passed by the AC was approved by the Commissioner and, therefore, it could not be said that it was without jurisdiction. The Court is unable to accept the above submission. Once the adjudicating proceedings are conducted by the Commissioner, it is he alone who was to pass orders in relation to any aspect of the adjudication and that cannot be delegated to any subordinate authority. Therefore, the Court finds no justification for denying the request for cross-examination of the two persons whose statements have been relied upon by the Customs Department. The impugned order is quashed with a direction to AA to permit the Petitioner to cross-examine the two persons within a time schedule to be fixed by the AA. - Petition disposed of
-
2016 (5) TMI 1040 - DELHI HIGH COURT
Seeking cross-examination of two persons whose statements were relied upon while issuing the SCN - Cross-examination denied by the order that "there is no such direction in the above referred order of Hon’ble High Court of Delhi and also the same was also never sought by you at the time of adjudication proceedings held earlier in the said matter.” - Held that:- the reason given is plainly untenable apart from the fact that the AC who passed the above order is not the AA himself. It is pointed out by the Respondents that the order passed by the AC was approved by the Commissioner and, therefore, it could not be said that it was without jurisdiction. The Court is unable to accept the above submission. Once the adjudicating proceedings are conducted by the Commissioner, it is he alone who was to pass orders in relation to any aspect of the adjudication and that cannot be delegated to any subordinate authority. Therefore, the Court finds no justification for denying the request for cross-examination of the two persons whose statements have been relied upon by the Customs Department. The impugned order is quashed with a direction to AA to permit the Petitioner to cross-examine the two persons within a time schedule to be fixed by the AA. - Petition disposed of
-
2016 (5) TMI 1039 - DELHI HIGH COURT
Seeking amendment in the petition to challenge the order passed by the Respondents subsequent to the filing of the writ petition imposing the conditions for release of the goods - Held that:- as rightly pointed out by the Respondents, under Section 128 of the Customs Act, 1962 even such an order is appealable. Consequently, the Petitioner would have to file an appeal against the said order before the Commissioner (Appeals). It is directed that in such event the period during which the present petition was pending would be taken into consideration by the Commissioner (Appeals). - Petition disposed of
-
2016 (5) TMI 989 - CESTAT CHENNAI
Eligibility for exemption benefit of Customs Notification No.21/2005-Cus. dt. 1.3.2005 - Import of various parts, such as PCB, Plastic casings etc. for the manufacture of Fixed Wireless Terminal - Held that:- Apex Court has settled the issue once and for all that the equipments working on FWT technology can be considered to be on par with cellular phones. This decision has also been followed by this Tribunal in many of its cases, such as in the case of Teracom Private Ltd. Vs CC Goa [2007 (10) TMI 47 - CESTAT, MUMBAI] where the matter has been discussed at very great length. Therefore, CDMA FWT equipments are on par with cellular phones and mobile handsets as held by the Apex Court. Hence the benefit given under Notification No.21/2005 which exempts parts, components and accessories of mobile handsets including cellular phones will have to be extended to parts and accessories of CDMA FWT. - Decided against the revenue
........
|
