News Update

IGI Airport to saturate in 2024; Govt sanctions Jewar Airport at G NoidaFICCI extends full support for smooth GST rollout in N-EDeemed exports benefits may be lost under GST regime: Commerce SecretaryWeather Portal for power sector launchedCBEC - IRS officers of 1981-82 batches get Apex Grade; become Pr CCsJ&K Deputy CM favours early implementation of GSTCus - Applicant seeking early hearing as he doesn't want any posthumous pardon from legal system - request granted: CESTATPIL filed before Bombay High Court for deferment of GST till next yearBanking Ombudsman - RBI expands scope to impose penalty for wrongly palming off third party products to customersIGI Airport Customs seizes gold worth Rs 1.1 Crore from different paxDomestic tourist visits take a leap of 12.7% in 2016EEPC India opens Technology Centre in BengaluruCyber crimes against children can now be reported at POCSO e-BoxCBEC to celebrate July 1 as GST Day every yearUnion Govt releases fresh list of 30 more Smart CitiesIndia-Malaysia Comprehensive Economic Cooperation Agreement (Bilateral Safeguard Measures) Rules, 2017 notifiedGST - Workshop for textiles - TCS software Adhigam earns appreciationTrade in wildlife articles - Dr Harsh Vardhan calls for continuation of harsh actionCabinet okays MoU with Portugal in public administration fieldCX - Debit notes caused deliberate under valuation - penalty is only remedial measure else it would be an incentive to lawlessness: CESTATI-T - Comparable sales instances of commercial properties is no deciding factor in determining valuation of residential flat: HCCX - Whether there is burning loss of 7.5% or even 15% that alone cannot be reason to demand the duty: CESTAT
 
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