Court: CESTAT Bangalore Date of Order: 2019-07-29
On the other hand, the learned AR submitted that there is a delay of 824 days in filing the present appeal and the appellant has not been able to explain such an inordinate delay and therefore COD application deserves to be dismissed.
Court: CESTAT Bangalore Date of Order: 2019-07-29
The appellant/importer filed reply to the ROM application wherein he has cited various requirements for issue of Unmanned Aircraft Operator Permit and other regulations of the DGCA. He has also produced a clarification by the DGCA through RTI application filed by M/s. Wings India wherein the DGCA has confirmed that there were never any restrictions to the use of model aircraft at all.
Court: CESTAT Bangalore Date of Order: 2019-07-26
On perusal of the miscellaneous applications for early hearing, we find that the revenue involved in these cases is more than Rs.15 crore. In view of this, we allow these miscellaneous applications for early hearing and direct the Registry list these appeals in its due course.
Court: CESTAT Bangalore Date of Order: 2019-07-24
We find that this issue has been coming up before this Tribunal time and again and the Tribunal has discussed in detail in Misc. Order No.20104-20106/2019 dated 7/03/2019 regarding the mission of the Revenue for recovery of the confirmed dues and penalties from the appellants while stay is still in operation, is not correct. We reproduce relevant paragraph below.
Court: CESTAT Hyderabad Date of Order: 2019-07-23
The contention of the learned Counsel for the Appellant that there should be no distinction between an institute which does not issue a certificate recognized by law and an institute which issues a certificate recognized by law because if a distinction is drawn, the exclusion clause would be rendered nullity, cannot also be accepted. The Legislature in its wisdom has drawn a distinction between these two types of institutes and in its wisdom has excluded only such type of institutes which award certificates recognized by law for the time being in force.
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.