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

Michigan House Approves 'Right-to-Work' Bill

Amid raucous protests, the Republican-led Michigan House approved a contentious right-to-work bill on  Dec 11 limiting unions' strength in the state where the (Union for American Auto Workers)  UAW was born. The chamber passed a measure dealing with public-sector workers 58-51 as protesters shouted "shame on you" from the gallery and huge crowds of union backers massed in the state Capitol halls and on the grounds. Backers said a right-to-work law would bring more jobs to Michigan and give workers freedom. Critics said it would drive down wages and benefits. The right-to-work movement has been growing in the country since Wisconsin fought a similar battle with unions over two years ago. Michigan would become the 24th state to enact right-to-work provisions, and passage of the legislation would deal a stunning blow to the power of organized labor in the United States. Wisconsin Republicans in 2011 passed laws severely restricting the power of public s...
Post a Comment
Read more

Power to re-assess by AO and disclosure of material facts

In AVTEC Limited v. DCIT, the division of the Delhi High Court held that AO is bound to look at the litigation history of the assessee and cannot expect the assessee to inform him.  In the instant case, the Petitioner, engaged in the business of manufacturing and selling of automobiles, power trains and power shift transmissions along with their components, approached the High Court challenging the re-assessment order passed against them. For the year 2006-07, the Petitioner entered into a Business Transfer Agreement with Hindustan Motors Ltd, as per which, the Petitioner took over the business from HML.  While filing income tax return for the said year, the petitioner claimed the expenses incurred in respect of professional and legal charges for the purpose of taking over of the business from HML as capital expenses and claimed depreciation. Article referred: http://www.taxscan.in/assessing-officer-bound-look-litigation-history-assessee-delhi-hc-read-order/8087/
Post a Comment
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