Mahanagar Nagrik Sahakari Bank Maryadit Vs Union of India And Others (Madhya Pradesh) Reserve Bank of India Circular Dated 25th June 2021; related to RBI control over Urban Co-Operative Banks; Stayed by Hon’ble MP High Court Jabalpur. While hearing a writ petition challenging constitutionality of Banking Regulation (Amendment) Act, 2020, and consequential Circular dated 25 […]
Petitioner’s imported vessels namely; ‘Jag Arnav’, ‘Jag Ratan’ and ‘Jag Rani’ were exempted from the payment of custom duty when they were first called in Indian Port. The Petitioner’s contention relied on the fact that the Exemption Notification 2012 which levied custom duty on imported vessels was passed after the import of their vessel and cannot have a retrospective application. Hence exempted the Petitioner from the payment of custom duty
Hazel Mercantile Ltd. Vs Chief Commissioner of Customs (Gujarat High Court) We find from the records of the case is that the though it is a stand of the Union of India that there can be no provisional release of goods pending seizure for which reliance is placed on a decision in the case of […]
Sony India Pvt Ltd Vs Union of India & Another (Telangana High Court) It is the duty and responsibility of the Assessing Officer / Assistant Commissioner to correctly determine the duty leviable in accordance with law before clearing the goods for Home consumption. The assessing officer instead, having failed in correctly determining the duty payable, […]
Telangana HC directed Customs Commissioner to amend BOE so as to enable importer to take refund of excess CVD paid
In M/s. Sony India (P) Ltd. v. Union of India [Writ petition no. 4793 of 2021 dated August 12, 2021] the Hon’ble Telangana High Court directed the Custom Commissioner to amend the Bill of Entry (BOE) so as to enable the Importer to claim refund of excess Countervailing Duty (CVD) paid. Facts: M/s Sony India […]
Polytech Trade Foundation Vs Union of India (Delhi High Court) Conclusion: These are all issues involving disputed questions of fact, not amenable to adjudication under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. It is not open to the Court – just as it was not open to the executive authorities – to approach the matter solely […]
Jay Shree Industries Vs Union of India (Allahabad High Court) Whether ‘redemption fine’ falls within the meaning of the word ‘penalty’ used in section 129 of the Scheme, we find neither word has been defined under the Scheme or the Rules framed thereunder or the principal Act, namely the Central Excise Act, 1944. Indisputably, the […]
The Karnataka High Court in M/s Pellagic Food Ingredients Private Ltd. v. Union of India [Writ Petition No. 14737/2021[T-CUS] issued an Interim Order dated August 12, 2021] wherein it ordered the Pellagic Food Ingredients Private Ltd. (Petitioner) for the appearance through video conference in response to summons issued under Section 108 of Customs Act, 1962 […]
Seized goods to be provisionally released during pendency of proceedings before Adjudicating Authority
HC directed the Adjudicating Authority to consider the prayers of provisional release of seized goods of the assessee, during the pendency of the proceedings under the Section 124 of the Customs Act, 1962.
Commissioner of Customs Custom House Vs Venkateshwara Paper Boards (Madras High Court) the request for mutilation was much after seizure of the goods. On and after 31.01.2020, stock lot goods are prohibited. Therefore, the issue would be if there are three varieties of paper bundled into one, whether it would fall within the definition of […]
Vijay Baid Vs Assistant Director (Chhattisgarh High Court) From perusal of Section 135 of the Act, 1962, it is evident that the punishment for committing offence under Section 135 of the Act, 1962, is upto seven years. Learned counsel for the petitioners relying upon the provisions of this Act, would submit that as per Section […]
M/s. Maithan Ceramics Limited Vs The Commissioner of Central Tax (Andhra Pradesh High Court) An analysis of the aforesaid statutory morphism would show while the original provision stipulated interest would be payable at a rate specified in Section 27A after expiry of three months from the date of communication of the order of the appellate […]
The moot question raised in the writ petition is, whether the writ petitioners are entitled to an extension of the usance period of the Letter of Credit Facility sanctioned to the writ petitioners from 180 days to 270 days.
Refusal to issue customs clearance to the High Alumina Refractory Cement (HARC) imported – demand for production of BIS certificate for the goods imported by the petitioners
High Court had refused to grant anticipatory bail to assessee-journalists who being accused of cheating depositors through Ponzi schemes as assessee had been indicted in an economic offence which was of serious in nature and the larger angle of conspiracy with regard to patronage of political and other persons in growth of such ponzi firms were required to be unearthed, no effective investigation could be made by the police by enlarging assessee on pre-arrest bail, even if he was ready and willing to cooperate with the investigation by remaining on pre-arrest bail.
Assessable person cannot be denied access to vital piece of evidence which can prove him innocent in the eyes of law by the department. Further, since this was not done, adverse inference must be necessarily drawn against the Respondent.
J P Morgan India Private Limited Vs Special Director, Directorate of Enforcement and Anr. (Delhi High Court) Brief: Offence under FEMA – Distinction between the two stages of the adjudication process – eligible reasons by the respondent no. 1 for the formation of opinion to proceed with the inquiry against the petitioner. Our Comments: The […]
No rejection of request for conversion to drawback-cum-advance authorization’ shipping bills without giving proper opportunity of hearing
M/s. Accoladee Vs Commissioner of Customs (Madras High Court) Brief: Conversion of the shipping bill from ‘drawback shipping bills to drawback-cum-advance authorization’ shipping bills. It is revealed that the advance authorization licence taken by the petitioner is not disputed. Our Comments: In the present case, petitioner is a manufacturer and exporter of garments. In the […]
YSI Automotive India Pvt. Ltd. Vs Commissioner of Customs (Madras High Court) EPCG scheme Non-mentioning of authorisation in case of third-party exports is not fatal: The Madras High Court has held that the requirement of mentioning EPCG licence of the manufacturer in the shipping bill, in case of third-party exports, though mandatory as per Para […]
The suit for malicious prosecution having been filed on 11th April 2008 which was within the period of one year, was therefore well within the limitation prescribed under The Limitation Act, 1963. Hence, the suit was well within limitation, as the period of limitation under Section 3 and Section 12 of the Limitation Act, 1962, r/w Entry 74 of the Schedule of the Limitation Act, would have ended only on 12th April 2008, which was one day after the date when the suit for malicious prosecution was presented by the Plaintiff/Respondent.