News Update

PM sets up 5-Member Economic Advisory Council; Bibek Debroy to head itGSTR-3B hourly return-filing pattern for August indicates peak filing of 1.33 lakh on Sept 20 at 7 PM; About 37K filed even at midnight; 13.7 lakh returns filed on Sept 20: GSTNKandla renamed as Deendayal Port; Indian Ports Act amended and notifiedGovt to launch Mudra Promotion drive on Pan-India BasisGST - CBEC about to notify cross-empowerment for dividing assessee-basePM to address 175 young IAS officers working as Asst Secretaries at CentreGSTN approves 24.6 lakh Registration from July 1 till dateWorld’s heaviest woman Eman Ahmed A E Aty passes away at Abu Dhabi hospitalKharif production likely to surpass 134 million tonnes markKarti Chidambaram case - ED attaches properties of firm suspected to be having nexus with himRajiv Mehrishi assumes office as New CAGST - Greenhouse is building and, therefore, would fall under definition of plant - activity of installation of plant (greenhouse) is liable to service tax: CESTATIndia's Bullet Train with Japanese Aid Tramples Fiscal Transparency (See 'Special' in TII)Centre to launch Neighbourhood Action Plan for better solid waste managementST - Financial advisory services provided by CRISIL does not fall under category of 'Management Consultancy Services' : High CourtImpact Analysis of GSTI-T - Reopening notice can be issued to dissolved firm, for not filing I-T Returns, if sizable cash loan transactions proves existence of firm during relevant period: HCST - Service of drilling and blasting alone does not fall under dredging service: CESTATCX – Adjudicating Authority should not be sympathetic to relieve defaulter from violation of law without penalty: CESTATGerman elections - Merkel captures powers for 4th timeFM assigns task to Chief Economic Adviser to finalise booster dose for economyPetrol prices will be reduced shortly, says Petro MinisterHealth Minister thanks PM for approving AIIMS at Bilaspur in HPCII favours further extension of GSTR-1, 2 & 3Thread of Mann Ki Baat integrates every section of society: PMCommerce Minister meets top honchos of Korean MNCsGSTR - 3B for July if submitted but not FILED can be done now: GSTN
 
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