Indirect Tax Weekly Flashback for the period 23 December 2024 to 28 December 2024.
Table of Contents
Delhi High Court
Prosecution Complaint Initiated After 17 Years: Cost Of 50k To Be Borne By PADG, DZU, DRI If Not Recovered From Salary Of Erring Officers: Delhi Court
Case Title: DRI v Baba Leather Impex Pvt. Ltd. & Ors.
The Delhi Court has imposed Rs. 50,000 cost on the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (DRI) Officer and stated that cost of Rs 50K to be borne by PADG, DZU, DRI if not recovered from salary of erring officers for lapses in a prosecution complaint in court initiated after 17 years.
The bench of ACJM Vaibhav Chaurasia has despite the untiring effort of 17 years, the DRI still failed to keep all the documents before the court and further did not take the occasion on the very first instance as where the aid of the court is required for prosecution.
Patna High Court
Panchnama Can’t Be Read Into Seizure Memo; Seizing Officer To Mention ‘Reason To Believe’ In Memo : Patna High Court
Case Title: Sukhdeo Singh Versus UOI
The Patna High Court while quashing the seizure memo has held that Panchnama cannot be read into seizure memo and seizure officer cannot keep reasons in his mind and he has to disclose minimal reasons in the seizure memo.
The bench of Justice P. B. Bajanthri and Justice S. B. Pd. Singh has observed that reading of both the seizure memo and Panchnama, one can draw inference that firstly seizure memo has been prepared and secondly Panchnama has been drawn, therefore, at the time of writing seizure memo, Panchnama was not written or existed. This is evident from reading Panchnama.
Punjab and Haryana High Court
For Imposition Of Penalty U/S 11AA Of Excise Act, Show Cause Notice Is Required To Be Issued : Punjab And Haryana High Court
Case Title: Haryana City Gas Distribution Limited Versus Commissioner of Central Excise and Central Goods and Service Tax and others
The Punjab And Haryana High Court has held that a show cause notice is required to be issued for imposition of penalty under section 11AA Of Excise Act.
The bench of Justice Sanjeev Prakash Sharma and Justice Jasjit Singh Bedi has observed that the financial implications identified in the audit were required to be placed before the petitioner company and it should have been given an opportunity of hearing and put up its defence thereafter a speaking order was required to be passed. If such an order would have been passed, the petitioner would also have an opportunity to file an appeal against the same.
Kerala High Court
Service Tax Payable On Activity Of Looking After Socio-Economic And Welfare Matters Of Ex-Servicemen And Their Families : Kerala High Court
Case Title: The Kerala State-Ex-Services League Versus Commissioner Of Central Excise Customs And Service Tax
In a major setback to Kerala State Ex-services League, the Kerala High Court has held that service tax is payable on activity of looking after socio-economic and welfare matters of ex-servicemen and their families.
The bench of Justice A.K. Jayasankaran Nambiar has observed that although it may be a fact that in any particular year(s), the appellant did not make any profit from its commercial activities, the fact remains that it had embarked upon the venture with an objective of making profit. The appellant cannot be treated at par with educational institutions, which by their very nature and going by the activities intended to be performed by them, cannot be seen as commercial concerns.
CESTAT
Dept. Can’t Deduct And Adjust Interest Neither Proposed In Show Cause Notice Nor In Order : CESTAT
Case Title: Harnik Food Industries Versus Commissioner of Central Excise, Pune I
The Mumbai Bench of Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has held that the department cannot deduct and adjust or charge any interest which was neither proposed in the show cause notice nor imposed in the Order-in-Original by the Adjudicating Authority.
The bench of Ajay Sharma (Judicial Member) has observed that when during the relevant time there was no provision in the statute about charging of interest and when there is no proposal in the show cause notice or in the Order-in-Original confirming the demand, the department deduct and adjust the same from the amount to be refunded.
3.5% Customs Duty Applicable On Import of Empty Cylinders From China For Ambulance Services, Under Janani Shishu Suraksha Karyakram : CESTAT
Case Title: M/s. GVK Emergency Management Research Institute Versus Commissioner of Customs (Port)
The Kolkata Bench of Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has held that 3.5% customs duty is applicable on import of empty cylinders from China for ambulance services, under Janani Shishu Suraksha Karyakram (JSSK).
The Bench of R. Muralidhar (Judicial Member) and K. Anpazhakan (Technical Member) has observed that the medical oxygen cylinders to be fitted in ambulances are excluded from the purview of Gas Cylinder Rules, 2004 (GCR, 2004) or GCR, 2016 or the jurisdiction of the Explosives Act, 1884 or licensing by the Chief Controller of Explosives. Accordingly, we hold that GCR, 2004/GCR 2016 are not applicable for the impugned goods imported by the appellant, as the said Rules have specifically exempted imported gas cylinders which are to be fitted in ambulances/special transport.
CENVAT Credit Can’t Be Denied To Tata Motors Citing Non-Issuance Of Invoice By Service Provider: CESTAT
Case Title: M/s. Tata Motors Versus Commissioner of Central Excise and Service Tax, Jamshedpur Commissionerate
The Kolkata bench of Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has held that CENVAT Credit cannot be denied to Tata Motors citing procedural irregularities.
The bench of R. Muralidhar (Judicial Member) and K. Anpazhakan (Technical Member) has observed that the CENVAT Credit availed by the appellant, Tata Motors on the basis of supplementary invoices were rejected by the adjudicating authority on the ground that the said invoices were not issued within 14 days from the date of completion of service or receipt of payment, whichever is earlier.
CESTAT Reduces Redemption Fine On Re-Export Of Cocoa Beans
Case Title: M/s. Mondelez India Foods Ltd. Versus Commissioner of Customs
The Banglore Bench of Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has reduced the redemption fine from Rs. 5 Lakhs to Rs. 2 Lakhs on re-export of Cocoa Beans.
The bench of Pullela Nageswara Rao (Technical Member) has observed that on recall of the goods by the Authorised Officer and after the issue of the show cause notice, the Adjudicating Authority as per the request of the appellant permitted re-export of the impugned goods on payment of redemption fine and penalty.
Notification
Fraudulent Claim Of Duty Drawback Based On Bogus Shipping Bills, Preventive Officer Of JNCH Demands Rs.1 Crore Bribe For Not Exposing Syndicate: CBI Files Chargesheet
The Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) has filed files Chargesheet against three accused including the then Preventive Officer of Jawaharlal Nehru Customs House (JNCH), Nhava Sheva and 02 Private persons in a bribery case.
CBI had registered the instant case on 12.02.2024 against said then Preventive Officer (Inspector), a private person and unknown others on allegations of criminal conspiracy, misconduct by public servant by demanding and accepting illegal gratification and abetment by giving bribe to public servant. It was alleged that accused public servants demanded and accepted illegal gratification at JNCH, Nhava Sheva.
CBIC Extends Concessional Duty On Yellow Peas Till 28th February 2025
Notification No. 49/2024-Customs
The Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs (CBIC) has amended Notification 64/2023-Customs to extend concessional duty on Yellow Peas till 28th February 2025.
All import consignments where a Bill of Lading (Shipped on Board) is issued on or before February 28, 2025, are immediately subject to registration under the online Import Monitoring System.
