Court: CESTAT Ahmedabad Date of Order: 2020-03-02
Considering the submission made by both the sides and perusal of record, I find that as per the text of the order it is clear that apart from appeal Nos. E/12266/2013-Smc and E/12267/2013-Smc the appeal E/13127/2014 and E/13128/2014 were also decided instead of appeal No. E/13135/2013- SMC and E/13136/2013-SMC respectively, therefore there is an apparent error in the order which needs to be corrected.
Court: CESTAT Mumbai Date of Order: 2020-02-27
The submission made by Learned Counsel appears to justify the delay. We are of the opinion that jurisdiction of Government of India in exercise of revisionary power is limited to eligibility to, and extant of, claim for drawback and the gravitating of the notice towards determination of value/description, or any other material particular, that has bearing on confiscation under section 111 and 113 of Customs Act, 1962, would preclude the jurisdiction of Government of India.
Court: CESTAT New Delhi Date of Order: 2020-02-26
The Tribunal had finally decided the matter by order dated 10 October, 2017 against which the Appellant filed an Appeal before the Rajasthan High Court which by order dated 19 September, 2018 remanded the matter to the Tribunal to consider the question of penalty. The Appellant assailed the order of the High Court before the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court allowed Civil Appeal No. 8824 of 2019 that was connected with three other Civil Appeals bearing No’s 8825 of 2019, 8826 of 2019 and 8827 of 2019. The judgment of the Rajasthan High Court was set aside and the matter was restored to the file of the High Court for a fresh decision in accordance with law.
Court: CESTAT Mumbai Date of Order: 2020-02-26
Learned counsel for the Appellants submits that the penalty imposed on the Appellants solely based on the statement of Mr. Riyaz Siddique, proprietor of M/s. Suhel Roadlines and therefore they asked for the cross-examination of the said Riyaz Siddique but no opportunity was given to them. He further submits that no serious efforts were made by the Adjudicating Authority to secure the presence of said Mr. Siddique and therefore the penalties imposed upon the Appellants are untenable. He also submits the none of the authorities below have recorded any finding to the effect that the Appellants had the knowledge or had a reason to believe that the goods were liable to be confiscated and therefore penalty under Rule 26 cannot be imposed. Per contra learned Authorised Representative for the Revenue reiterated the findings recorded in the impugned order and prayed for dismissal of Appeals. He further submits that many chances were given to Mr. Riyaz Siddique to appear but he did not appear. According to him perusal of the records of the case make it clear that the appellants alongwith M/s. Sunrise Textiles connived with Suhel Roadlines, proprietor Mr. Riyaz Siddique to divert the duty free PTY in the domestic market and therefore penalty under Rule 26 has rightly been imposed upon them.
Court: CESTAT Bangalore Date of Order: 2020-02-26
Articles of jewellery falling under heading 7113 of the Central Excise Tariff on which the brand name or trade name is indelibly affixed or embossed were subjected to Central Excise duty at the rate of 2 per cent by notification dated 1 March, 2005. The Explanation to the notification provides that for the purpose of the notification, ‗brand name or trade name‘ means a brand name or trade name, whether registered or not, that is to say, a name or a mark, such as a symbol, monogram, label, signature or invented words or any writing which is used in relation to a product, for the purpose of indicating, or so as to indicate, a connection in the course of trade between the product and some person using such name or mark with or without any indication of the identity of that person.
Court: CESTAT Chandigarh Date of Order: 2020-02-21
Considering the fact that as per Ld. Counsel for the appellants that similar issue has been dealt by this Tribunal in their own case for the other import, we allow the applications for early hearing of the appeals and direct the Registry to list these appeals for final disposal in the month of April, 2020 DB.
Court: CESTAT New Delhi Date of Order: 2020-02-21
Learned Counsel for the Domestic Industry has also referred to a matter relating to import of “jute products” and has submitted that even though Designated Authority in the final findings had not made any recommendation for according individual dumping margin to the exporters, but the Central Government had issued a Notification for amending the earlier notification by substituting the Explanation and directing that the export of subject goods shall be finally assessed under the residual categories specified in the Table contained in the Customs Notification.
Court: CESTAT New Delhi Date of Order: 2020-02-18
In the facts and circumstances of the case, we are inclined to allow the application after imposing costs. The application filed for condonation of delay is allowed with a cost of Rs. 1 Lac to be deposited within a period of 15 days from today in the Prime Minister’s Relief Fund. The application is, accordingly, allowed.
Court: CESTAT New Delhi Date of Order: 2020-02-18
Shri Jitender Singh, learned Counsel appearing for the New Shippers Applicant - respondent 3 & 4 has, however opposed the application and submitted that explanation offered to explain the delay is not satisfactory.
Court: CESTAT Hyderabad Date of Order: 2020-02-14
Head learned A.R. for the Revenue and learned counsel for the appellant. Considering the fact that in the appellant’s own case the matter has already been remanded, we find that this is a fit case to grant early hearing. Therefore we allow the early hearing application. Registry is directed to list this appeal along with connected Appeal Nos ST/2605/2012 and ST/20171/2014 for final hearing on 17.02.2020.