News Update

DRI nabs Dubai-bound pax with FC worth Rs 1.93 croresCX - Too late for Revenue to complain that there is non-compliance by Settlement Commission with mandatory provisions of law: High CourtI-T - Tax Recovery Officer cannot summarily assume powers under Indian Contract Act, 1872, to suo motu declare a transaction of sale to be void & without approaching civil court: HCI-T - Expenses incurred for purely business purposes not being incurred on employees, would not attract Fringe Benefit Tax: HCCX - General practice amongst masses to not consider trading as an 'exempted service' till amendment was made in CCR - assessee had no malafide intention to avail undue benefit: CESTATCJI impeachment - Opposition Parties finally do it; hands over Notice to Vice PresidentBRICS discusses constitution of Working Group on illicit financial flowsCBDT shifts DGHRD office to Jawaharlal Nehru StadiumCBIC clarifies that remnant fuels (HSD/LDO) (after ship breaking) are classifiable under Chapter 27 and free from import policy restrictionsI-T - Mere projection of profit statement found in loose sheets from taxpayer's premises, is no basis for levying penalty in his hands: ITATGoM on Transport recommends uniform road tax structureCX - Assessee taking credit on rejected goods, recyling same and paying duty on clearance alleging that credit has been availed irregularly is unsubstantiated no question of double duty : CESTATGovt seeks feedback to Draft Coastal Regulation ZoneI-T - Payments made to founder or relative of trust, if credited to trust's account immediately without taking any undue benefit from it, will not upset exemption benefit u/s 11: ITATFC to individually assess needs of each State: NK SinghCX Mere reiteration of order of penalty imposed by original authority, who had jurisdiction, by first appellate authority, who lacked jurisdiction, does not cause grievance to appellant at that stage: CESTATGoM on Transport recommends uniform road tax and national permits for buses and taxisJustice Loya death case - SC dismisses pleasChennai Customs nabs pax coming from Dubai with gold worth Rs 2.5 Cr + also seizes 7.5 kg of seahorses during vehicle checkGovt to give new award to certain ranks of Civil servantsVAT - Reimbursement received by dealer for supply of spare parts to its customers under warranty period, are not liable to VAT under Maharashtra VAT Act: HCIT - Where Revenue detects massive tax evasion through bogus bills, it cannot wash hands of it through mere additions: ITATIT - Failure to explain scientific method in determining the amount of performance bonus payable to employees can lead to its disallowance : ITATST - Demand of differential amount of service tax alleging that entire amount collected by PCO operator is subject to levy of service tax cannot sustain for period prior to 01.03.2011: CESTATIndia almost ready with Rs 600 Crore Chandrayaan-2Govt launches Study in India Portal for foreign studentsAfter issuance of SCN, write to noticees about availing window of Settlement Commission for early settlement of disputes - CBIC instructs fieldCBDT Diktat on Misconduct - But, Mr Prime Minister, Actual High-handedness lies in Revenue Target Fixation!
 
CX - Revenue seeks quashing of decision of Tribunal cited by AA - Committee is apparently not cognizant of principles governing appropriate remedy: CESTAT

By TIOL News Service

MUMBAI, APRIL 21, 2017: THIS is a Revenue appeal filed in the year 2006.

Issue in dispute is the classification of 'C4 raffinate (return stream)' with duty implication of Rs.94,87,425/-. Proceedings were initiated against appellant for failure to file classification list.

The CCE, Belapur held that the 'return stream' product was not an input or partially processed input but a product that is classifiable under CETAheading 2711.12. The duty liability was confirmed with penalty but in appeal the CESTATremanded the matter with specific direction to the original authority to await the classification of the incoming stream.

In remand proceedings, going by the finding in re M/s Indian Petrochemical Corporation Ltd - 2005-TIOL-147-CESTAT-AHM that 'C-4 raffinate is not distinguished by any specific proportion of isomers of butylenes but is a mix and, for classification under 2711.12, the composition has to be at least 70% pure isomer of butylenes while raffinate, being a mix of various isomers of butylenes, the adjudicating authority (AA), by the impugned order-in-original dropped proceedings.

Aggrieved, Revenue is in appeal. It is inter alia contended that the decision supra has been challenged before the Supreme Court in West Coast Paper Mills - 2004-TIOL-14-SC-LMT-LB , holding that an appeal entertained by the Supreme Court would jeopardize the judgments of High Courts or the Tribunal.

The AR supported the stand taken by the department in the SCNs. None appeared for assessee.

The Bench observed -

+ We find that the original authority has followed the decision of the Tribunal in classification of 'C-4 raffinate'. Nothing could be further from illegality and impropriety than such a respectful adherence to the law of the land, no matter how fleeting and ephemeral it may be, and it certainly does not behove the reviewing authority to casually dismiss the findings of the Tribunal in such an airy manner.

+ The Hon'ble Supreme Court, by its stature as the apex of the judicial branch of the Government, can term the judgment of a High Court or Tribunal as in jeopardy when it has accepted the jurisdiction in appeal against such impugned orders. For the Committee of Chief Commissioners to adopt such expressions, as are used in a context by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, while placing itself before the appellate jurisdiction of the Tribunal is asolecism that borders on contempt with appropriately grave consequences.

+ The entire proceedings of the review committee is devoted to a critique of the order of the Tribunal in re M/s Indian Petrochemical Corporation Ltd which the impugned order has rightly relied upon. In doing so, Revenue seeks quashing of a decision of the Tribunal. The proper authority to submit to for such a consummation is not the Tribunal. It is also moot whether exercise of jurisdiction to review the order of a Commissioner in re Maharashtra Polybutene Ltd can be extended to review of a decision by any authority in another matter.

Continuing with the lambasting of the reviewing authority in a couple of more paragraphs, the CESTAT concluded that since the appeal itself is without any challenge to the legality and propriety of the impugned order, the same is required to be dismissed.

The Revenue appeal was dismissed.

(See 2017-TIOL-1338-CESTAT-MUM)


POST YOUR COMMENTS