SIGN IN SUBSCRIBE

News Update

World Energy Congress 2024: IREDA CMD highlights need for Innovative Financing SolutionsVoter turnout surpasses 50% by 4 PM in Phase 2 pollsST - Amendment made to FA, 1994 on 14.05.2015 making service tax applicable retrospectively on chit-fund business is only prospective - Refund payable of tax paid between 01.07.2012 to 13.05.2015: HCXI tells Blinken - China, US ought to be partners, not rivalsST - SVLDRS, 2019 - Amnesty Scheme, being of the nature of an exemption from the requirement to pay the actual tax due to the government, have to be considered strictly in favour of the revenue: HCCX - Issue involved is valuation of goods u/r 10A of CE Valuation Rules, 2000 - Appeal lies before Supreme Court: HCCus - Smuggling - A person carrying any article on his belonging would be presumed to be aware of the contents of the articles being carried by him: HCCus - Penalty that could be imposed for smuggling 3.2 kg of gold was Rs.88.40 lakhs, being the value of gold, but what is imposed is Rs.10 lakhs - Penalty not at all disproportionate: HCCus - Keeping in mind the balance of convenience and irreparable injury which may be caused to Revenue, importer to continue indemnity bond of 115 crore and possession of confiscated diamonds to remain with department: HCCus - OIA was passed in October 2022 remanding the matter to adjudicating authority but matter not yet disposed of - Six weeks' time granted to dispose proceedings: HCI-T - High Court need not intervene in matter involving factual issues; petitioner may utilise option of appeal: HCChina asks Blinken to select between cooperation or confrontationI-T - Unexplained cash credit - additions u/s 68 unsustainable where based on conjecture & surmise alone: ITATHonda to set up USD 11 bn EV plant in CanadaImran Khan banned from flaying State InstitutionsI-T - Income from sale of flats cannot be computed in assessee's hands, where legal possession of flats had not been handed over to buyers in that particular AY: ITATPro-Palestine demonstration spreads across US universities; 100 arrestedI-T - Investment activities in venture capital which are not covered in negative list under Schedule III to SEBI Regulations, qualifies for deduction u/s 10(23FB): ITATNATO asks China to stop backing Russia if keen to forge close ties with WestNY top court quashes conviction of Harvey Weinstein in rape case
 
Cus - Recovery of incineration charges for destruction of goods as per SC order - there is no provision for grant of stay by CESTAT or for that matter under Customs also - Tribunal has no jurisdiction whatsoever: CESTAT

By TIOL News Service

MUMBAI, NOV 21, 2014: A notice dated 21/07/2014 was issued by the Dy. Commissioner of Customs, JNCH, Nhava Sheva, pertaining to recovery of incineration charges of the waste oil contained in 39 containers of quantity 6,28,368 kg. The incineration charges for destruction of these goods amounting Rs.92,11,047/- @ Rs.14.80 per kg., is sought to be recovered as per Apex Court's order dated 04/04/2014.

The appellant filed a Misc. Application before the CESTAT seeking stay of the impugned demand under Rule 41 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982.

It is submitted that the Tribunal had ordered pre-deposit of Rs.2.5 lakhs against penalty of Rs.10 lakhs imposed on the appellant vide stay order dated 27/01/2006 and subject to such pre-deposit, recovery of dues were stayed pending decision. It is the further contention that whether the oil imported by the appellant is hazardous in nature or not, is pending decision before the Tribunal and, therefore, before deciding on the issue, the issue of notice for recovery of incineration charges is premature.

The AR submitted that the goods imported by the appellant were tested by Maharashtra Pollution Control Board under direction of Supreme Court Monitoring Committee for Hazardous wastes and it is in terms of the Supreme Court order that the goods were disposed of through incineration and charges were imposed, and therefore, the miscellaneous application is not maintainable.

The CESTAT observed -

"4. This Tribunal granted stay in respect of dues adjudged namely, duty, interest and penalty. There is no provision for grant of stay under Rule 41 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982. In the present case, the issue relates to recovery of incineration charges and there is no provision under the Custom Act to stay recovery of such charges. Further, the recovery is sought to be made in terms of the Apex Court order. Therefore, this Tribunal has no jurisdiction, whatsoever, to deal with this matter…."

The Miscellaneous application was dismissed as not maintainable.

(See 2014-TIOL-2311-CESTAT-MUM)


POST YOUR COMMENTS
   

TIOL Tube Latest

TIOL Tube
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.

TOP NEWS

AR not Afar by SK Rahman

VISION 360



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

TII LATEST

TIOLCORPLAWS LATEST