Court: CESTAT Bangalore Date of Order: 2019-09-12
Learned Counsel for the appellant submitted that the impugned order is not sustainable in law as the same has been passed without giving any specific finding on each of the reimbursable expenses. He further submitted that the only question in this appeal is whether the expenses viz.
Court: CESTAT Bangalore Date of Order: 2019-09-04
After considering the submissions of both the parties and perusal of the material on record, I find that in the present case the appellant got the copy of the impugned order only on 29.03.2019 and thereafter filed the appeal on 03.04.2019 which is within period of limitation. Further, I find that the Department has not been able to establish the proof of delivery of the impugned order and therefore I am of the view that there is no delay in filing the present appeal which is in time and therefore I hold that the COD becomes redundant as the appeal is in time. List it on 09.10.2019 for final disposal.
Court: CESTAT New Delhi Date of Order: 2019-09-03
When the matter came up before the Tribunal on 18 April, 2019, the order passed by the Delhi High Court on 4 February, 2019 was taken note of, but time was granted to the Appellant to obtain appropriate modification of the order passed by the Delhi High Court.
Court: CESTAT Mumbai Date of Order: 2019-08-26
The dispute before the Tribunal pertained to compliance with conditions for duty-free clearance to Indian Navy which was denied owing to documents of receipt being found to have been signed by a person who was neither authorised to nor occupying a duly designated office in the competent branch of the Indian Navy. We find that the Tribunal has examined the various evidences and, in paragraph no. 5, has come to a clear conclusion that the facts on record bear out the allegation of diversion of goods that were claimed to have been supplied to the Indian Navy. In the light of the conclusive finding of diversion based on facts and circumstances on record, the plea of eligibility for alternative exemption or of benefit of exemption extended to supply of ship stores or any lacuna in the findings of the original authority would not have had any bearing on the outcome except with evidence of delivery to the procurement office of Indian Navy.
Court: CESTAT Bangalore Date of Order: 2019-08-23
We find that in the Final Order No. 692/2007 dated 07.06.2007, the Bench had categorically held that Section 114A of the Customs Act 1962 does not apply in this case and no penalty can be imposed upon the appellant. We are not aware of any order of a higher judicial forum setting aside this finding of this Bench. The imposition of penalty by the Commissioner in the impugned order is a clear violation of this direction by this Bench and therefore, the same needs to be set aside. We also find that the issue of freight of daughter vessels was unclear to everyone including the CBEC themselves and it was only discussed, deliberated and clarified by the CBEC vide their Circular dated No. 04/2006 dated 12.01.2006. Under such circumstances to allege that the appellant has not paid duty correctly with an intention to evade is not correct.
Court: CESTAT New Delhi Date of Order: 2019-08-22
Per contra, learned Departmental Representative has submitted that the facts of each case are different. The decision relied upon is not applicable for the present facts and circumstances where the cenvat credit has been denied on the invoices which were more than six months old. Justifying the impugned Order and submitting that the mistake pointed out is not obvious and that the Final Order has clearly distinguished the case of Micro Marbles (supra), application accordingly is prayed to be dismissed.
Court: CESTAT New Delhi Date of Order: 2019-08-20
Since the observations in the impugned final order are opined to be based on wrong interpretation, the order imposing the penalty being subjective to the findings for the alleged clandestine removal are also hereby recalled.
Court: CESTAT Chennai Date of Order: 2019-08-16
After perusing the records as well as considering the submissions made by both sides, it is seen that delay was caused as the staff did not bring to the notice of the proprietrix the receipt of the order, so as to file the appeal within time. Taking these facts into consideration, I am of the view that the appellant has to be put to terms for condoning the delay. The appellant shall pay a cost of Rs.6,000/- (Rupees six thousand only) to Revenue on or before 16.09.2019. Failure to pay the cost, the COD application along with appeal will stand dismissed without any further notice. For compliance, call on 16.09.2019.
Court: High Court of Delhi Date of Order: 2019-08-14
Shri Akhil Krishan Maggu, Learned Counsel also submits that against the common adjudication order, the appeal and other co-noticee/ parties are pending before this Tribunal, and thus there will be no prejudice caused to the respondent Revenue. He further stated that as the appellant has filed the appeal as M/s Jaskaran Enterprises within time, there is no deliberate delay or latches on their part in preferring the present appeal, in its individual capacity.
Court: High Court of Andhra Pradesh Date of Order: 2019-08-13
On perusal of the record, I find that initially the matter was listed on 18.03.2019 and 04.07.2019. On all the occasions none appeared on behalf of the Appellant nor any request for adjournment has been received. In these circumstances, it is concluded that Appellant is not interested in pursuing the case, but in the interest of justice, one more chance is given to the Appellant to defend their case subject to Cost of Rs. 2000/- to be deposited in the Prime Minister Relief Fund within 7 days from today and compliance to be reported on 17 September, 2019. On such compliance, the matter shall be taken up for hearing on the same date for final hearing.