Court: CESTAT Chandigarh Date of Order: 2019-07-16
As the agreement between the appellant and the licensee/dealer is in nature of share of profit in the ratio of 25% and 75% and in cases where there is a loss, the appellant does not received any amount towards the activity, in that circumstances, we categorically held that the agreement between the appellant and the dealer is in nature of joint venture for which no service tax is payable by the appella.
Court: CESTAT Mumbai Date of Order: 2019-07-11
Having regard to the submissions made by the adversaries, I am of the considered view that while condoning delay in filing appeal, maintainability of the appeal is immaterial since only after appeal is admitted for hearing, maintainability issue can be decided. Needless to mention here that an adjudication order is always based on contesting pleadings of parties where a particular right is asserted by a person and denied by the opponent, who both prefer a decision on the same from an approved forum. Hence such an adjudication order can’t be treated as administrative order. This being the factual and the legal scenario and the grounds cited in the application to condone delay being found sufficient, delay is condonable. Hence the order.
Court: CESTAT Ahmedabad Date of Order: 2019-07-11
We have carefully considered the submission made by both the sides and perused the records. We find that the Ld. Counsel has raised very important preliminary issue that the adjudicating authority instead of deciding the matter on general meaning of made ups and fabric should have decided on the basis of statutory provision as provided under Chapter Notes of Section XI of Customs Tariff as well as on the HSN Notes. In these facts, we are of the view that the matter needs to be reconsidered by the adjudicating authority. All the issues are kept open. Since in these matters, this Tribunal had allowed the early hearing application and the matter appears to be of urgent nature, the adjudicating authority should pass a de novo adjudication order preferably within a period of 3 months from the date of this order. Needless to say that the appellant should be given sufficient opportunity of personal hearing and making their submission, if any, required. Accordingly, we set aside the impugned order and allow all the appeals by way of remand to the adjudicating authority for passing a fresh order.
Court: CESTAT Allahabad Date of Order: 2019-07-10
This Tribunal through Final Order No. 71081 of 2019 dated 04 June, 2019 upheld the Order-In-Appeal No. 20-CUS/APPL/LKO/2019 dated 23 January, 2019 passed by Commissioner (Appeals), Customs, GST and Central Excise, Lucknow through which the learned Commissioner (Appeals) allowed appeal filed against Order-in-Original No. 15/ADC/2018 dated 14 August, 2018 through which 19,670 kg of betel nuts valued at Rs 52,12,550/-(Rupees fifty two lakhs twelve thousand five hundred and fifty only) were confiscated and allowed to be redeemed on payment of redemption fine of Rs 12 lakhs. In addition there was confiscation of vehicle and imposition of penalties on other appellants. Since the said Order–In-Original was set aside by learned Commissioner (Appeals) through said Order-In-Appeal dated 23 January, 2019, which was upheld by this Tribunal, the applicant of the present miscellaneous application became entitled for unconditional release of said goods on passing of said Order-In-Appeal dated 23 January, 2019. Instead of honouring the Order-In-Appeal, Revenue preferred an appeal before this Tribunal. The said appeal was dismissed and said Order-In-Appeal dated 23 January, 2019 was upheld through said Final order dated 04 June, 2019. As per the miscellaneous application, the said goods have not been released to applicant Shri Harshit Garg. Revenue through Letter No. VIII (25)445/Commr Appl/2019 dated 28 June, 2019 informed the Authorized Representative of Revenue that the Commissioner of Customs (Preventive), Lucknow has approved to issue said Letter in which it is stated that the said Final Order dated 04 June, 2019 is under review by the Competent Authority. It was stated in said Miscellaneous Application that Revenue is not releasing the subject betel nuts on the pretext that Revenue intends to file appeal before Hon’ble High Court. It was informed by Authorized Representative of Revenue that Commissioner of Customs (Preventive) Lucknow is Mr. Ved Prakash Shukla. It is made clear that even if Revenue wishes to file appeal before Hon’ble High Court, there is no requirement of keeping the goods with Revenue when at two stages they have lost the case. As on today Revenue does not have any Authority to retain the subject goods. We, therefore, direct Commissioner of Customs (Preventive), Lucknow to unconditionally release subject goods forthwith and in any case before 12th July, 2019. In case the subject goods are not released by 12th July, 2019, Shri Ved Prakash Shukla, Commissioner shall remain present in person in this Court at 10:30 AM on 23rd July, 2019.
Court: CESTAT New Delhi Date of Order: 2019-07-10
Keeping in view the said adjudication and having all regard to the decision of the Co-ordinate Bench, we hereby accept the same outcome for the present application. Resultantly, the final order of 19.06.2017 is hereby recalled and the appeal stands alive for the final hearing. In the given circumstances, request for release of the Bank Guarantee is opined premature. The Misc. Application, accordingly, stands partly allowed. The matter be listed for final hearing on 08.08.2019.
Court: CESTAT Hyderabad Date of Order: 2019-07-09
After hearing both sides, we are of the considered opinion that the delay caused in filing the appeal is not deliberate and intentional. The said delay has been satisfactory explained to us. Accordingly, miscellaneous application for condonation of delay is allowed. Appeal to come up for final hearing in due course.
Court: High Court of Allahabad Date of Order: 2019-07-08
In any case and in any view of the matter, we find that the appeals themselves are listed today for final disposal. As such we direct the appellants’ jurisdictional authorities to await the outcome of the Tribunal’s decision and not to take any coercive action against the appellant for recovery of the dues.
Court: CESTAT Mumbai Date of Order: 2019-07-08
Explaining the delay, the learned Advocate for the Appellants submit that the said delay has occurred due to the fact that the Managing Director Shri Shriram Malik was seriously ill and underwent treatment of Hepatitis E, (incurable disease). During the relevant period, he was admitted to three different hospitals and all along bed ridden. They have enclosed the copies of necessary medical certificates, doctor’s prescriptions, etc. The learned Advocate further submitted that after the Managing Director became reasonably fit to attend the office in May 2018, they have initiated necessary steps for filing the appeals. It is her contention that the delay was bonafide and solely on account of prolonged sickness and treatment of the Director Shri Shriram Malik, who is conversant with this matter.
Court: CESTAT Ahmedabad Date of Order: 2019-07-04
With above order of the Supreme Court we are of the view that when even the highest court of the country cannot decide the matter in the division bench and matter was referred to the Larger Bench of the Supreme Court. In our view, the de-novo adjudication should be passed only after the outcome of the Hon’ble Supreme Court Larger Bench decision, therefore, we have consciously given the direction to the adjudicating authority which in our view does not suffer from any apparent mistake. Moreover, when this bench after considering all the submissions made by both the sides given finding which, if does not suit to parties that cannot amount to apparent error.
Court: CESTAT Mumbai Date of Order: 2019-07-03
Heard on the stay applications filed by the Appellant Department seeking stay on execution of orders of refund that were allowed by the Commissioner (Appelas) by order No. MKK/397-398/RGDAPP/18-19 dtd. 21-12-2018. Learned DR for the Appellant submits that unless stay is granted, the department would incur financial loss as it has a strong case on merit but in producing a bank statement, wherein refunds have already been shown as credited to the Appellant’s account, Learned Counsel for the respondent company submitted that order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) has already been given effect for which stay application has become redundant.