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

Appellate authorities under Special Statutes cannot be asked to condone delay

Madras High Court in R.Gowrishankar vs. The Commissioner of Service Tax has held that Appellate authorities cannot be asked to condone the delay, beyond the extended period of limitation A Division Bench comprising of Justices S. Manikumar and D. Krishnakumar, made this observation while considering an appeal filed against Single Bench order declining to set aside the order made in the condone delay petition filed by the petitioner to condone 223 days in filing the appeal before the Commissioner of Service Tax (Appeals). Article referred: http://www.livelaw.in/appellate-authorities-special-statutes-cannot-asked-condone-delay-beyond-extended-period-limitation-madras-hc/
Post a Comment
Read more

'Seize assets to pay damages to accident victim'

Her story might be an inspiration for the physically challenged but justice has remained elusive for her. In 2008, a bus accident left research engineer S Thenmozhi, 30, paraplegic. In April 2013, the motor accident claims tribunal directed the Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation (TNSTC) to provide her a compensation of 57.9 lakh. However, TNSTC refused to budge and on Tuesday a city court ordered attaching of movable assets of the transport corporation. Thenmozhi was employed in C-DOT, a telecom technology development centre in Bangalore. On July 21, 2008, she was coming to Chennai in a private bus. Around 2am, the bus had a flat tyre and the driver parked it on the left side of the road near Pallikonda in Vellore district on the Bangalore-Chennai highway. While the tyre was being changed, a TNSTC bus of Dharmapuri division hit the stationary bus. The rear part of the bus was smashed and passengers were injured. Thenmozhi who had a seat at the back of the bus suffered...
Post a Comment
Read more

Mumbai ITAT rules income of offshore discretionary trust is subject to tax in India

The Mumbai Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) has recently determined the following issue in the affirmative in the case of Manoj Dhupelia: Should the income of an offshore discretionary trust be subject to tax in India, if no distributions have been made to beneficiaries in India? The question arose from appeals filed by individual beneficiaries in relation to a Lichtenstein-based trust, the Ambrunova Trust and Merlyn Management SA (the Trust) with the ITAT. It is important to note that the individuals in this case were amongst those first identified by the Government of India (GOI) as holding undeclared bank accounts in Lichtenstein. The ITAT ruling raises the following issues: Taxation of Trust Corpus: ITAT classified the corpus of the trust as "undisclosed income" and declared it taxable in the hands of the beneficiaries. Taxation of Undistributed Income: ITAT refused to draw a distinction between the corpus and undistributed income from the trust and declared i...
Post a Comment
Read more