TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Tribunal rejects Revenue's rectification application, enforces bond compliance with retrospective aviation requirement.</h1> <h3>M/s. Reliance Transport & Travel Ltd. Versus CC, Delhi</h3> The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's application for rectification of mistakes in the Final Order, holding that the Civil Aviation Requirement dated ... Rectification of mistake - release of the bank guarantee in compliance with the directions given in the final order - Rule 41 of (CESTAT) Procedure Rules - Held that:- The Revenue is directed to comply with the directions by returning the bond and bank guarantee by 25.01.2019 and file the compliance report on or before 30.01.2019. Issues:1. Rectification of mistakes sought by Revenue in ROM application.2. Directions for release of bank guarantee by appellant/assessee.3. Applicability of Civil Aviation Requirement (CAR) dated 1.6.2010.4. Reference to Larger Bench in VRL Logistics Ltd. case.5. Enforcement of bond for recovery of customs duty.6. Violation of principles of natural justice and fair opportunity to Revenue.7. Compliance with directions for returning bond and bank guarantee.Analysis:1. The Revenue filed a ROM application seeking rectification of mistakes in the Final Order. The Tribunal considered the issues raised by the Revenue, including the reliance on CAR dated 1.6.2010 instead of CAR dated 8.10.99. The Tribunal held that CAR dated 1.6.2010 applies retrospectively, dismissing the Revenue's claim. Additionally, the Tribunal addressed the reference made in the VRL Logistics Ltd. case, distinguishing it from the present case and rejecting the Revenue's contentions. The Tribunal found no errors in its previous findings and dismissed the grounds raised by the Revenue.2. The Tribunal examined the issue of enforcement of bond for recovery of customs duty, where the Revenue argued that the impugned order was bad in law as the duty was confirmed through enforcement of bond. The Tribunal referred to a ruling of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and held that there was no violation of post-import conditions. The Tribunal concluded that the ground raised by the Revenue was frivolous and academic, given the absence of any violation of post-import conditions in the present case.3. Another issue addressed was the alleged violation of principles of natural justice and denial of fair opportunity to the Revenue. The Revenue claimed insufficient time for compliance with returning the bond and bank guarantee. The Tribunal held that it had not violated any provisions of law and extended the time for compliance. The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's application, noting that the Revenue had not filed an appeal despite the time elapsed.4. Lastly, the Tribunal issued directions for the release of the bank guarantee by the appellant/assessee. The Revenue was directed to comply with returning the bond and bank guarantee by a specified date. The Tribunal set a deadline for the Revenue to file a compliance report, ensuring adherence to the directions provided in the Final Order.In conclusion, the Tribunal thoroughly analyzed each issue raised by the parties, addressing the applicability of legal provisions, previous judgments, and principles of natural justice. The judgment provided clear reasoning for dismissing the Revenue's claims and ensuring compliance with the directions issued.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
