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!
 
Cus - Commissioner had misplaced sympathy on appellant to exonerate them - CC to conduct enquiry & do needful: CESTAT

By TIOL News Service

MUMBAI, JULY 17, 2017: WHILE conducting investigation, the Customs department noticed that the goods [Polyester fabrics] were overvalued to take undue DEPB credit.

The Commissioner relied on the market enquiry reports as well as the quality report and disallowed DEPB credit only in respect of live consignment . Insofar as the earlier two bills of entry were concerned, the adjudicating authority did not deny DEPB although the goods were overvalued.

The appellants filed appeals before the CESTAT in the year 2007 but on account of their non-appearance the matters were rolling on board on several occasions. When a last opportunity of hearing was extended, an adjournment application was filed stating that one Shri Suriyanarayanan is unable to appear. Noting that it is not mentioned whether the said person is engaged as an Advocate and considering that the application is not filed by the appellant or representing counsel, the same was rejected.

The AR prayed that the order should be upheld. Incidentally, there is no mention of any Revenue appeal.

The Bench observed -

“5. When the records were perused, it transpires that there was overvaluation of the goods as per the Quality Certificate issued by the aforesaid two entities and learned Commissioner without going into the sum and substance of investigation as depicted in para 7 and 8 of the show cause notice, had misplaced sympathetically on appellant to exonerate them from charge against the previous consignment of claim of undue DEPB credit. He allowed DEPB credit on past consignments to the detriment of justice. He only disallowed DEPB credit only on the live consignment. Further he permitted M/s. H.M. Printer to take back the goods on payment of redemption fine.”

Expressing surprise at the manner in which the matter was adjudicated with total disregard to law causing prejudice to interest of Revenue (in the words of the CESTAT), the Chief Commissioner was requested to conduct enquiry and ‘do the needful at his end '.

As for the appeal's, the Bench observed that the SCN brings out contumacious conduct of the appellant and their manner of disregard to the law without providing any material to exhibit their co-operation with the investigation; that there were some bogus entities and fake bills were raised by them to enable the appellants to inflate value of the exports.

Concluding that the appellants had oblique motive to defraud revenue in the manner brought out in the show cause notice and fake and fabricated invoices were used to make undue DEPB claim, the appeals were dismissed.

(See 2017-TIOL-2452-CESTAT-MUM)


POST YOUR COMMENTS