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

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

Court approached in the early stages of arbitration will prevail in all other subsequent proceedings

In National Highway Authority of India v. Hindustan Steelworks Construction Limited, the Hon'ble Delhi High Court opined that once the parties have approached a certain court for relief under Act at earlier stages of disputes then it is same court that, parties must return to for all other subsequent proceedings. Language of Section 42 of Act is categorical and brooks no exception. In fact, the language used has the effect of jurisdiction of all courts since it states that once an application has been made in Part I of the Act then ―that Court alone shall have jurisdiction over arbitral proceedings and all subsequent applications arising out of that agreement and arbitral proceedings shall be made in that Court and in no other Court. Court holds that NHAI in present case cannot take advantage of Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963 for explaining inordinate delay in filing present petition under Section 34 of this Act in this Court.
Post a Comment
Read more

No Rebate For Stamp Duty Paid In Another State - Bombay HC

A three judge bench of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court (Bombay HC) in a recent judgment in the matter of Chief Controlling Revenue Authority, Maharashtra State, Pune and Superintendent of Stamp (Headquarters), Mumbai v Reliance Industries Limited, Mumbai and Reliance Petroleum Limited, Gujarat1 has held that orders in case of a scheme of arrangement under Section 391 to 394 of the Companies Act, 1956 (Act) involving different High Courts in multiple states, are separate instruments in themselves. Accordingly, stamp duty would be payable on all the orders (and consequently, all the states) without the benefit of remission, rebate or set-off.
Post a Comment
Read more