It is not known as to why the Assistant Commissioner chose not to give a personal hearing which is a clear violation of Principles of Natural Justice. The original authority has shown total disregard for the principles of natural justice in not granting personal hearing before passing the adjudication order. There is no indication that the respondent was delaying the adjudication proceedings as the reply has been promptly submitted by the respondents as has been duly noted by the original authority. He has held that the respondents have not produced any evidence to prove that the charge raised by them on the main service provider has been included on the tenable value of the main service provider
The respondents is a manufacturer of satellite components and aircraft components classifiable under Chapter sub-heading 88033000 and they are paying excise duty on these goods. They are also providing service of renting of immovable property coming under Section 65(105) (zzzz) of Finance Act, 1994. The respondents have availed credit of excise duty paid on capital goods and inputs and service tax paid on input service.
Explore the CESTAT judgment upholding precedent decisions on EOU duty discharge and DTA sale eligibility. Know the legal insights in this insightful read.
Supreme Court: Service Tax on Renting of Immovable Property – Requests High Court to hear and dispose of all writ petitions pending before it as expeditiously as possible since same are listed for final hearing on 15-2-2011
RBF Rig Corporation, Mumbai Versus The Commissioner of Customs (Imports), – Supreme Court – Customs – Refund -Adjudicating Authority cannot permitted to circumvent the order passed by the High Court. High Court directs consideration of refund claim on the basis of essentiality certificate – Adjudicating Authority rejects claim on the ground that assessment not challenged. Article 226 of the Constitution confers powers on the High Court to issue certain writs for the enforcement of fundamental rights conferred by Part-III of the Constitution or for any other purpose. The question, whether any particular relief should be granted under Article 226 of the Constitution, depends on the facts of each case. The guiding principle in all cases is promotion of justice and prevention of injustice. It is not open to the subordinate Tribunal to examine whether a direction issued by the High Court under its writ powers was correct and refuse to carry it out as such amounts to denial of justice and destroys the principle of hierarchy of courts in the administration of justice.
Payment made by the first respondent/assessee was not voluntary and was forced to make the said payment. In such circumstances, the said payment can only be construed as one made under protest. When once the said conclusion based on the above facts are inevitable, then the second proviso to sub section 1 of Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, automatically comes into play.
All these appeals are filed against the order of CESTAT dismissing the appeals filed by the appellant mainly on the ground that the appellant has failed to make payment of predeposit amount of Rs.3 crores as ordered by the CESTAT. Counsel for the appellant hands over the pay order for a sum of Rs.3 crores drawn in the name of S.B.I. Service Tax to Ms. Suchitra Kamble , counsel for the Revenue in compliance of the order passed by the CESTAT. Since the order of the CESTAT regarding pre-deposit is complied with, order passed by the CESTAT dismissing the appeals on 12/11/2010/15/11/2010 is quashed and set aside.
These 18 appeals, by special leave, are directed against he common judgment and order dated September 6, 2007 passed by Calcutta High Court whereby 18 criminal revision applications filed by the appellant for quashing the proceedings initiated by the
This appeal is directed against the Order of the Customs, Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal, West Zonal Bench [hereinafter referred to as ‘the Tribunal’] dated 12.05.2006. The Deputy Commissioner of Customs has rejected the refund claim of appellant on the ground of unjust enrichment and failure to challenge the assessment of the Bills of Entry at the appellate stage, without even considering the Essentiality Certificates in the light of specific and binding directions of the High Court. A refund claim under the Act is not an appeal proceeding and the officer considering a refund claim cannot sit in appeal or review an assessment order made by a competent authority. Such assessment order is final unless it is reviewed and/or modified in an appeal. If for any reason, the subordinate authority is of the view that the directions issued by the Court is contrary to statutory provision or well established principles of law, it can approach the same Court with necessary application/petition for clarification or modification or approach the superior forum for appropriate reliefs. In the present case, as we have already noticed, the respondents have not questioned the order passed by the High Court, which order has reached finality. In such circumstances, we cannot permit the adjudicating authority to circumvent the order passed by the High Court.
Rahuljee & Company Ltd. Versus Commissioner of Customs (Delhi High Court) -The importers who got the goods cleared on the basis of licences purchased by them through one, Gautam Chaterjee and these licences had ultimately turned out to be forged and fabricated licences purported to be issued in the names of different licence holders. – order dated 30th March, 2010 passed by CESTAT confirming the order in Original of the Adjudicating Authority imposing the penalty upon the appellants is sustainable.
