News Update

Has Globalisation favoured capital more than labour? Can taxing super-rich help?GST - SC asks Govt not to use coercion for recovering arrearsChanging Tax Landscape in IndiaPrivate equity funds pouring in India’s healthcare sectorInterpretation of StatutesGoogle, Microsoft move Delhi HC against order to erase non-consensual intimate images16th Finance Commission invites views from general public on terms of referenceEvery party committed to ensure PoK returns to India; Jaishankar695 candidates to contest LS elections in Phase 5Astronomers’ efforts lead to discovery of a rocky planet with atmosphereCSIR hosts Student-Science Connect program on Climate ChangeVolkswagen asks EU not to raise tariffs on EVs from ChinaI-T - Assessee given insufficient time to file reply to Show Cause Notice; assessment order quashed; matter remanded for reconsidering assessee's replies: HCChina blocks imports from Intel & QualcommI-T - Assessee has 5 email IDs & responded to communications received on one of these IDs; Assessee cannot claim to have been denied an opportunity of personal hearing before passing of order: HCRecord rainfall damages over 1 lakh homes in Brazil; over 100 lives lostI-T- Additions framed u/s 68 r/w Section 115BBE are unwarranted where assessee duly explains nature & source of cash receipts, through sufficient documentation: ITATRussia bombards Ukraine’s power supply; Serious outages fearedI-T- Re-assessment cannot be resorted to beyond 4 years from end of relevant AY, where assessee has not failed to file ITR or to make full & true disclosure of facts necessary for assessment: ITATIndia received foreign remittance of USD 111 bn in 2022, says UNI-T- Receipt of subscription fees can't be considered as commercial activity: ITATPitroda resigns as Chairman of Indian Overseas Congress over racist remarkST - In case of payment received through cheque, it is the date of honouring cheque, which has to be construed as date of receipt of advance payment and since amount was received by appellant on or after appointed date, appellant would not be entitle to benefit of exemption notification: CESTAT86 flights of AI Express cancelled as crew goes on mass sick leaveCus - When undervaluation of goods is alleged solely based on value of contemporaneous imports, all details relating to such imports are to be necessarily established by Revenue: CESTAT
 
On and from 17.02.2011 there is no requirement for CoD nod - therefore, as law stood on 18.02.2011, Tribunal was not correct in dismissing Revenue's appeal - Petition dismissed: HC

By TIOL News Service

NEW DELHI, JAN 29, 2013: THE CESTAT, Delhi passed the following order on 18.02.2011 -

"Revenue has filed an application for early hearing of their appeal on the ground that more than 45 months have been passed since filing of appeal before this Tribunal and the same has not been heard, a huge amount of Rs. 90 lakhs is involved, so the matter be heard on out of turn basis.

2. Heard and considered. 3. We do agree with the appellant that although 45 months have passed the appeal has not come up for hearing. It is prime duty of the appellant, before filing appeal before this Tribunal against any public sector undertaking to obtain the necessary clearance from COD as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of ONGC. We have observed that more than 3 years have been passed, departmental officers had not even pursued to obtained clearance from COD till date, which shows lethargic attitude of the officers. Even this application is also filed for early hearing of appeal without applying for clearance from COD which means the department is not interested in pursuing this appeal also. After taking note of that, we allow this application for early hearing of appeal and are taking up the appeal for disposal today itself. 4. As we find that the appellant i.e. Revenue has failed to obtain necessary clearance from COD to contest the matter before this Tribunal, the appeal is dismissed for want of COD clearance, with liberty to the appellant to come up before this Tribunal after obtaining necessary clearance from COD. Appeal is disposed of in above manner.

5. Misc. application allowed and appeal dismissed."

Incidentally, after the CESTAT passed the above reproduced order, the Revenue filed an application for Restoration of Appeal by placing reliance on the Constitution Bench decision of the Supreme Court in Electronics Corporation of India Limited v. UOI: (2011-TIOL-18-SC-CX-CB) wherein it is inter alia held that the CoD mechanism had outlived its utility and accordingly the order in ONGC case - (2002-TIOL-196-SC-CX) was recalled.

This application of the Revenue was allowed by the CESTAT on 30.04.2012. Inasmuch as the Customs Appeal No. 538/2007 which had been dismissed, by virtue of a final order No. C-95/11 dated 18.02.2011 on the ground that the clearance of the Committee on Disputes had not been obtained, was restored by the CESTAT.

The high flying PSU is not at all happy with this order.

So, they are before the Delhi High Court.

The High Court observed -

"4....It is relevant to note that the said decision of the Supreme Court was rendered on 17.02.2011, that is, prior to the date on which the appellant's appeal had been dismissed (on 18.02.2011) on the ground of want of COD clearance. The Supreme Court in Electronics Corporation of India Limited (supra) observed and held as under:-

"x x x"

5. Thus, on and from 17.02.2011, there was no necessity for obtaining any clearance from the Committee on Disputes. The order dated 18.02.2011 was passed in ignorance of the Supreme Court decision of 17.02.2011. There are justifiable reasons as to why the Tribunal passed that order because it was just one day after the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Electronics Corporation of India Limited (supra). However, the fact remains that on and from 17.02.2011, there was no requirement for obtaining a clearance from the Committee on Disputes. Therefore, as the law declared by the Supreme Court stood on 18.02.2011, the Tribunal was not correct in dismissing the revenue's appeal. The Tribunal has only rectified that mistake by allowing the revenue's said Customs ROA Application No. 41/2011 by reviving the appeal for hearing on merits.

6. We see no infirmity in the impugned order dated 30.04.2012 and, in any event, no substantial question of law arises for our consideration."

The appeal filed by Air India Ltd. was dismissed.

(See 2013-TIOL-70-HC-DEL-CUS)


POST YOUR COMMENTS
   

TIOL Tube Latest

Shri N K Singh, recipient of TIOL FISCAL HERITAGE AWARD 2023, delivering his acceptance speech at Fiscal Awards event held on April 6, 2024 at Taj Mahal Hotel, New Delhi.


Shri Ram Nath Kovind, Hon'ble 14th President of India, addressing the gathering at TIOL Special Awards event.