News Update

Govt orders mandatory declaration of stock position of wheatCPI gets Rs 11 Cr tax notice for using old PAN numberGST - Penalty demand of Rs.3731 crores - A person who would fall within the purview of sub-section (1-A) of s.122 should necessarily be a taxable person who retains the benefits of transactions: HCGovt issues advisory against calls impersonating DoTFATP hand-wrings over slow regulation of crypto by member-countriesGST - Threatening and pressurising petitioner who is merely an employee - Highly unconscionable and disproportionate on the part of the officer: HCECI's C-Vigil app a big hit with votersGST - Same relief was claimed in earlier petition which was withdrawn unconditionally - Fresh petition seeking same relief is barred by the estoppel principle: HCIncome tax hands over Rs 1700 Cr tax demand to Congress PartyGST - Neither SCN nor the order spell out the reasons for retrospective cancellation of registration, hence cannot be sustained: HCStage-2 of Vikram-1 orbital rocket successfully test-firedGST - Non-application of mind - If reply was unsatisfactory, details could have been sought - Record does not reflect that such exercise was done - Matter remitted: HCHouthis claim UK has not capability to intercept their hypersonic missilesGST - Merely because a taxpayer has not filed returns for some period does not mean that registration is required to be cancelled with retrospective date also covering the period when returns were filed and taxpayer was compliant: HCIsraeli forces kill 200 Palestinians at Gaza medical complex & arrest over 1000GST - Petitioner's reply, although terse, is not taken into account while passing assessment orders - Petitioner put on terms, another opportunity provided: HCUnveil One Nation; One Debt Code; One Compliance Rule for Centre & StatesChina moves WTO against US tax subsidies for EVs & renewable energyMore on non-doms - The UK Spring Budget 2024 (See TII Edit)Training Program for Cambodian civil servants commences at MussoorieCBIC revises tariff value of edible oils, gold & silverCBIC directs all Customs offices to remain open on Saturday & SundayI-T- Once the citizen deposits the tax upon coming to know of his liability, it cannot be said that he has deliberately or willfully evaded the depositing of tax and interest in terms of Section 234A can be waived: HCHouthis attack continues in Red Sea; US military shoots down 4 dronesCus - No Cess is payable when Basic Customs Duty is found to be Nil: CESTAT
 
Customs - Goods imported against forged DEPB Licences purchased from open market - Appellant has not taken any precaution - Supreme Court decision in Aafloat Textiles followed - Hico Enterprises distinguished - Demand upheld: CESTAT

By TIOL News Service

CHENNAI, FEB 10, 2016: THE appellant purchased DEBP Licences in open market through broker and used them for import of goods. Investigations revealed that the Licences were forged and Show Cause Notice was issued. The Adjudicating Authority confirmed duty demand and imposed penalties. The appellant filed appeal before the Tribunal. The Tribunal remanded the matter to allow cross examination. The demand was again confirmed and on appeal the Tribunal allowed the appeal on limitation. Revenue filed ROM contending that the decision in case of Hico Enterprises relied on by the CESTAT was overruled by the Supreme Court. The ROM was allowed and the matter was restored before the CESTAT for fresh decision.

The Appellant contended that the Supreme Court in the case of CC (Imports), Bombay Vs Hico Enterprises - 2008-TIOL-246-SC-CUS upheld the Larger Bench decision of the Tribunal 2005-TIOL-1100-CESTAT-MUM-LB. They contended that the Supreme Court's order in the case of Hico Enterprises was passed by Three Judges Bench whereas the Apex Court's order in the case of Aafloat Textiles comprised of Two Judges Bench. There are two Apex court orders on the identical issue. The Judgement rendered by Three Judges Bench will prevail over Two Judges Bench. In this regard, the appellant relied on State of U.P. Vs Ram Chandra Trivedi - (1976) 4 SCC 52.

After hearing both sides, the Tribunal held:

++ The Tribunal's Larger Bench in Hico Enterprises case held that transferee cannot be called upon to fulfil the condition of the notification. This case is distinguishable and not applicable in view of the Supreme Court's later judgement in the case of Commissioner of Customs Vs Aafloat Textiles (India) Pvt. Ltd. - 2009-TIOL-42-SC-CUS wherein the Apex Court has dealt the issue in detail and settled the issue in favour of Revenue.

++ Further, the Supreme Court in a recent decision in the case of TISCO Vs CC Mumbai on identical issue of fraud committed by the original licence holder, the Apex Court upheld the Tribunal's order confirming the demand on TISCO who is the transferee of such licence.

++ By respectfully following the apex court judgement in the case of Afloat Textiles (India) Pvt. Ltd. and TISCO and the Tribunal's decision in the case of Sharman Woollen Mills Ltd. Vs CC Amritsar, it is held that in the present case the goods were cleared by the appellant by forged/fake DEPB licences and forged TRAs and the demand of duty under Section 28(1) of the Customs Act, 1962 is liable to be upheld.

(See 2016-TIOL-381-CESTAT-MAD)


POST YOUR COMMENTS
   

AR not Afar by SK Rahman

TIOL Tube Latest

Shri Shailendra Kumar, Trustee, TIOL Trust, giving welcome speech at TIOL Awards 2023




Shri M C Joshi, Former Chairman, CBDT




Address by Shri Buggana Rajendranath, Hon'ble Finance Minister of Andhra Pradesh at TIOL Awards 2023