Supreme Court Round Up - Recent Cases
Revenue loses case for not allowing cross examination of witnesses:
Revenue in most cases have no qualms about using the statements of witnesses to prove its case, but the moment you ask for cross examination, they get jittery and will take any steps to ensure that cross examination is not allowed. In a recent case, the party's appeal was allowed by the Supreme Court on this ground alone.
Please see Andaman Timber Industries Vs Commissioner of Central Excise, Kolkata-II - 2015-TIOL-255-SC-CX.
No wilful mis-statement or suppression for following Tribunal Decision.:
The assessee had decisions of two Benches of the Tribunal and a Larger Bench in his favour when he filed the declaration. The Larger Bench Decision was upset by the Supreme Court and later doubted by another Bench. In such a situation, the assessee could not be held or accused of having willfully misstated or suppressed facts.
Please see Commissioner of Customs Vs Reliance Industries Ltd -
Remand is an open remand:
The only objection raised by the Revenue is that when the issue was remitted back for re-determination it should have been open remand and should not have remarked that "Dry Weight Standards" should be applied and even in respect of that the matter should have been left open for the Adjudicating Authority to take a call thereof. This suggestion is accepted by the counsel for the assessee. The directions are modified with the observations that on remand when the matter is to be re-determined by the Adjudicating Authority, it is an open remand and it would be permissible for the Adjudicating Authority to go into all the relevant issues in determining the classification.
Please see Commissioner of Central Excise, Mumbai Vs Raymond Ltd - .
Central Excise - Hot Air Stenter Independent Textile Processors Annual Capacity Determination Rules, 1998 -:
The vires of the Rule was challenged before the Madras High Court in Beauty Dyers v. Union of India - and the High Court held the said Rule to be ultravires the erstwhile Section 3A of the Act. Special leave petition was preferred by the Union of India against the said judgment was dismissed by this Court.
It becomes clear that the respondent was not supposed to pay any duty, more so, when the entire exercise was revenue neutral.
Please see Commissioner of Central Excise Vs Angadpal Indl Pvt Ltd - 2015-TIOL-254-SC-CX.
Central Excise - Classification - milk shake mix and soft serve mix::
the main purpose is to maintain the product consistency during storage and transportation as well as to improve the shelf life. Merely because it improves the body and texture of the product and adds some smoothness thereto, that would not change the basic character of the produce.
Please see Commissioner of Central Excise Vs Amrit Food - 2015-TIOL-256-SC-CX.
Central Excise - Classification - "Calcined China Clay"::
Show Cause Notice proceeded on the basis that as China Clay was calcined, it could not be included under Chapter Heading 25.05 and since Chapter Heading 38.24 mentions about some specified product including those consisting of mixture of natural products, it would fall under Chapter Heading 38.24.
Held: merely because the product of assessee, i.e., China Clay is calcined, it would not put it out of Chapter Heading 25.05.
Please see Commissioner of Customs & Central Excise Vs 20 Microns Ltd - 2015-TIOL-253-SC-CX.
Customs - Valuation - before rejecting the invoice price, the Department has to give cogent reasons for such rejection.::
it is to be borne in mind that the onus is on the Department by leading cogent evidence. The case law cited by Revenue was in favour of the assessee!
Please see Commissioner of Customs (Imports), Mumbai Vs Bayer Corp Science Ltd - 2015-TIOL-252-SC-CUS.
Until Tomorrow with more DDT
Have a nice day.
Mail your comments to vijaywrite@tiol.in