SIGN IN SUBSCRIBE

News Update

Cus - When there is nothing on record to show that appellant had connived with other three persons to import AA batteries under the guise of declaring goods as Calcium Carbonate, penalty imposed on appellant are set aside: HCCongress fields Rahul Gandhi from Rae Bareli and Kishori Lal Sharma from AmethiCus - The penalty imposed on assessee was set aside by Tribunal against which revenue is in appeal is far below the threshold limit fixed under Notification issued by CBDT, thus on the ground of monetary policy, revenue cannot proceed with this appeal: HCGST -Since both the SCNs and orders pertain to same tax period raising identical demand by two different officers of same jurisdiction, proceedings on SCNs are clubbed and shall be re-adjudicated by one proper officer: HCFormer Jharkhand HC Chief Justice, Justice Sanjaya Kumar Mishra appointed as President of GST TribunalSale of building constructed on leasehold land - GST implicationI-T - If assessee is not charging VAT paid on purchase of goods & services to its P&L account i.e., not claiming it as expenditure, there is no requirement to treat refund of such VAT as income: ITATBengal Governor restricts entry of State FM and local police into Raj BhawanI-T - Interest received u/s 28 of Land Acquisition Act 1894 awarded by Court is capital receipt being integral part of enhanced compensation and is exempt u/s 10(37): ITATCops flatten camps of protesting students at Columbia UnivI-T - No additions are permitted on account of bogus purchases, if evidence submitted on purchase going into export and further details provided of sellers remaining uncontroverted: ITATTurkey stops all trades with Israel over GazaI-T- Provisions of Section 56(2)(vii)(a) cannot be invoked, where a necessary condition of the money received without consideration by assessee, has not been fulfilled: ITATGirl students advised by Pak college to keep away from political eventsI-T- As per settled position in law, cooperative housing society can claim deduction u/s 80P, if interest is earned on deposit of own funds in nationalised banks: ITATApple reports lower revenue despite good start of the yearI-T- Since difference in valuation is minor, considering specific exclusion provision benefit is granted to assessee : ITATHome-grown tech of thermal camera transferred to IndustryI-T - Presumption u/s 292C would apply only to person proceeded u/s 153A and not for assessee u/s 153C: ITATECI asks parties to cease registering voters for beneficiary-oriented schemes under guise of surveys
 
CX – Duty can be demanded from consignor only where goods are diverted without delivery of goods to consignee against CT-3 certificate: CESTAT

By TIOL News Service

MUMBAI, MAY 04, 2017: THE facts are that the appellants have cleared excisable goods without payment of duty against CT-3 certificate on ARE-3 form.

The case of the department is that the appellants have not produced the re-warehousing certificate in time and, therefore, they are liable to pay duty in terms of Rule 20(4) of CER, 2002.

Demand was confirmed by the original authority and the Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the same.

The appellants are in appeal before the CESTAT.

In their appeal, it is submitted that they could not produce the re-warehousing certificates as the same were not provided by the consignee; however, they have produced evidence that the goods have been received by the consignee and the payment against the same was also received. It is further argued that since receipt of the goods is not under dispute, the demand cannot be raised from the consignor as per sub-rule (4) of Rule 20 of CER, 2002. Inasmuch as in the facts of the present case, Rule 20(3) applies and according to which if at all there is any lapse and duty is recoverable, the same must be recovered from the consignee of the goods as the bond is executed by the consignee and CT-3 was issued against the bond.

The AR reiterated the findings of the impugned order.

The Bench observed –

"4. … I find that there is no dispute in the fact that the re-warehousing certificate was not produced by the appellants. However, there is no dispute that the goods were received by the consignee on the basis of the evidence produced by them. In such case, if at all any duty has to be recovered it can be recovered from the consignee of the goods in terms of Rule 20(3) of Central Excise Rules, 2002. The duty can be demanded from the consignor under this procedure, only in a case where goods are diverted without delivery of the goods to the consignee against CT-3 certificate, which is not the case here. Therefore, the demands raised against the appellants are not sustainable. The appellants admittedly did not produce re-warehousing certificate, which is requirement under the Rule. The non-production of re-warehousing is contravention of the provisions. Therefore, the appellants are liable for penalty of Rs.5000/- under Rule 27 of Central Excise Rules, 2002. However, the duty demand and interest thereon are set aside."

The appeal was partly allowed.

(See 2017-TIOL-1490-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