Skip to main content

Delay caused in an act required to be done by Government authority

In Cheema Spintex Ltd. V. Commissioner of Customs (ICD) TKD, New Delhi, Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal held that delay caused in an act required to be done by Government authority cannot be adopted as ground for penalizing innocent Appellant.

In instant case, Appellant was a 100% EOU engaged in manufacture and export of cotton yarn. Appellant sought permission to opt out of EOU scheme. Development Commissioner gave approval to exit from EOU scheme on payment of duty on capital goods under prevalent EPCG scheme. Said directions of Development Commissioner were complied with by Appellant including calculation of duty liability. Duty so calculated was finally paid by Appellant. Appellant applied for 'No Dues Certificate' which was given by Deputy Commissioner, on 3rd December, 2007. After 'No Dues Certificate', final de-bonding order was issued by Development Commissioner. Thereafter, Appellant had effected 70 exports under 70 free shipping bills. As per Appellant, they were made to file free shipping bills in respect of exports made after 26th September, 2007, even though, they had fully paid requisite duty, as final de-bonding order was yet to be passed.

Appellant applied to Revenue for conversion of 70 free shipping bills into draw back shipping bills in respect of export of cotton yarn made during intervening period from 26th September, 2007 to 9th January, 2008. Adjudicating authority vide impugned order addressed issue of conversion of free shipping bills to draw back shipping bills and concluded that such conversion was possible. However, he allowed conversion of only 31 shipping bills out of total 70 shipping bills which were filed during period between issuance of 'No Dues Certificate' and issuance of de-bonding order. In respect of shipping bills filed prior to issuance of 'No Dues Certificate', he rejected such conversion on ground that inasmuch 'No Dues Certificate' was not issued by Revenue, such conversion request cannot be accepted.

The Tribunal said that Appellant completed all formalities and discharged their duty obligation on 26th September, 2007 and applied to Revenue for issuance of 'No Dues Certificate'. Said certificate could have been issued by Revenue within a period of one week, two weeks or so, in which case the benefit would have been granted to Appellant even earlier. There is no answer as to why issuance of said certificate took more than two months. Issuance of certificate is not in hands of Appellants and delay taken by Revenue for issuance of such certificate cannot act prejudice to Appellants interest. Delay caused in an act required to be done by Government authority cannot be adopted as a ground for penalizing an innocent Appellant. As such, date of issuance of 'No Dues Certificate' by Revenue cannot be adopted as a relevant date so as to decide Appellant's right to conversion of shipping bills. 

Comments

Post a Comment

Most viewed this month

Valuation Report of Jewellery once made is effective for Four Assessment Years

The division Bench of the Delhi High Court in Pr.Commissioner of Wealth Tax vs. Raghu Hari Dalmia held that a valuation report made by a registered valuer once adopted shall be in effect for four assessment years unless an event has occurred whereby the value is increased or decreased. The High Court made it clear that the event of “search” under Section 132 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 cannot compel the assessee to undertake a fresh valuation.
2 comments
Read more

The recovery of vehicles by the financier not an offence - SC

Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No. 8907  of 2009 Anup Sarmah (Petitioner) Vs Bhola Nath Sharma & Ors.(Respondents) The petitioner submitted that  respondents-financer had forcibly taken away the vehicle financed by them and  illegally deprived the petitioner from its lawful possession  and  thus,  committed  a crime. The complaint filed by the petitioner had been  entertained  by  the Judicial Magistrate (Ist Class), Gauhati (Assam) in Complaint Case  No.  608 of 2009, even directing the interim custody of the vehicle (Maruti  Zen)  be given to the petitioner vide order dated  17.3.2009.  The respondent on approaching the Guwahati High  Court against this order, the hon'ble court squashed the criminal  proceedings  pending   before  the  learned Magistrate. After hearing both sides, the Hon'ble Supreme Court decided on 30th...
7 comments
Read more

Mere Agreement To Sell The Leased Property To Tenant Would Not Terminate Landlord-Tenant Relationship

In CIVIL APPEAL Nos. 1237­1238 OF 2019, Dr. H.K. Sharma vs Shri Ram Lal, the tenant had objected against the eviction suit filed by the landlord, claiming that the landlord-tenant relationship between them had ceased to exist by virtue of an agreement for sale entered between them and that he has already paid some money in advance based on the agreement. The tenant contented as the landlord-tenant relationship did not exist, the landlord cannot evict him. The matter went through various forums and finally landed before the Supreme Court in appeal. The Supreme Court referring to the judgment in Shah Mathuradas Maganlal & Co. vs. Nagappa Shankarappa Malage & Ors., held that in the instant case the lease agreement included no clauses on the fate of the tenancy. A fortiori, the parties did not intend to surrender the tenancy rights despite entering into an agreement of sale of the tenanted property. In other words, if the parties really intended to surrender their tenancy ...
2 comments
Read more