Latest news with #CESTAT
The Hindu
11 hours ago
- Business
- The Hindu
High courts not custodian of revenue department, says Supreme Court; stays Bombay HC order
High courts are not the "custodian" of the revenue department, the Supreme Court has said while dealing with a petition challenging a Bombay High Court order that stayed a tribunal's direction for a refund of ₹256.45 crore to a firm. A bench of Justices Ujjal Bhuyan and Manmohan observed that prima facie, the High Court could not have stayed the order after holding that the appeal filed by the Commissioner of CGST and Central Excise, Belapur Commissionerate, was not maintainable. "A high court is not the custodian of the revenue," the Supreme Court, which stayed the High Court's June 12 order, observed. "Prima facie, the high court could not have passed the order of stay after holding the appeal to be not maintainable and after recording that the writ petition and the appeal are disposed of as not pressed," the bench said in its order passed on June 20. The Supreme Court passed the order while hearing a plea filed by the firm, challenging the High Court order. The bench noted that the high court had disposed of a writ petition as well as an appeal filed by the revenue department. It also noted that the appeal was filed under section 35G of the Central Excise Act, 1944 against a January 2025 order of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) in Mumbai that allowed the Service-Tax appeal of the firm. The Supreme Court said subsequently, the company filed an application for the release of the amount, which was allowed in May. It noted that the high court had recorded in its June 12 order that both the petition and the appeal were "disposed of as not pressed with liberty to the respondent to prefer appeal before the Supreme Court, the High Court has stayed the direction of CESTAT for refund for a period of eight weeks". The bench issued a notice to the revenue department, seeking its response within six weeks on the firm's plea challenging the high court order. "In the meanwhile, impugned order of the high court dated June 12, 2025 shall remain stayed," the bench said. "This order shall, however, not preclude the respondent from filing appeal before this court under section 35L of the Central Excise Act, 1944, if not already filed, which shall be decided on its own merits and/or limitation," the bench said and posted the matter for further hearing on July 2.
&w=3840&q=100)
Business Standard
12 hours ago
- Business
- Business Standard
HCs not custodian of revenue department, says SC; stays Bombay HC order
High courts are not the "custodian" of the revenue department, the Supreme Court has said while dealing with a petition challenging a Bombay High Court order that stayed a tribunal's direction for a refund of Rs 256.45 crore to a firm. A bench of Justices Ujjal Bhuyan and Manmohan observed that prima facie, the high court could not have stayed the order after holding that the appeal filed by the Commissioner of CGST and Central Excise, Belapur Commissionerate, was not maintainable. "A high court is not the custodian of the revenue," the apex court, which stayed the high court's June 12 order, observed. "Prima facie, the high court could not have passed the order of stay after holding the appeal to be not maintainable and after recording that the writ petition and the appeal are disposed of as not pressed," the bench said in its order passed on June 20. The top court passed the order while hearing a plea filed by the firm, challenging the high court order. The bench noted that the high court had disposed of a writ petition as well as an appeal filed by the revenue department. It also noted that the appeal was filed under section 35G of the Central Excise Act, 1944 against a January 2025 order of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) in Mumbai that allowed the Service-Tax appeal of the firm. The apex court said subsequently, the company filed an application for the release of the amount, which was allowed in May. It noted that the high court had recorded in its June 12 order that both the petition and the appeal were "disposed of as not pressed with liberty to the respondent to prefer appeal before the Supreme Court, the high court has stayed the direction of CESTAT for refund for a period of eight weeks". The bench issued a notice to the revenue department, seeking its response within six weeks on the firm's plea challenging the high court order. "In the meanwhile, impugned order of the high court dated June 12, 2025 shall remain stayed," the bench said. "This order shall, however, not preclude the respondent from filing appeal before this court under section 35L of the Central Excise Act, 1944, if not already filed, which shall be decided on its own merits and/or limitation," the bench said and posted the matter for further hearing on July 2.
Time of India
12 hours ago
- Business
- Time of India
‘High Courts not custodian of revenue': SC stays Bombay HC order blocking Rs 256 crore refund to firm
High courts are not the "custodian" of the revenue department , the Supreme Court has said while dealing with a petition challenging a Bombay High Court order that stayed a tribunal's direction for a refund of Rs 256.45 crore to a firm. A bench of Justices Ujjal Bhuyan and Manmohan observed that prima facie, the high court could not have stayed the order after holding that the appeal filed by the Commissioner of CGST and Central Excise, Belapur Commissionerate, was not maintainable. "A high court is not the custodian of the revenue," the apex court, which stayed the high court's June 12 order, observed. by Taboola by Taboola Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like Play War Thunder now for free War Thunder Play Now Undo "Prima facie, the high court could not have passed the order of stay after holding the appeal to be not maintainable and after recording that the writ petition and the appeal are disposed of as not pressed," the bench said in its order passed on June 20. The top court passed the order while hearing a plea filed by the firm, challenging the high court order. Live Events The bench noted that the high court had disposed of a writ petition as well as an appeal filed by the revenue department. It also noted that the appeal was filed under section 35G of the Central Excise Act , 1944 against a January 2025 order of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal ( CESTAT ) in Mumbai that allowed the Service-Tax appeal of the firm. The apex court said subsequently, the company filed an application for the release of the amount, which was allowed in May. It noted that the high court had recorded in its June 12 order that both the petition and the appeal were "disposed of as not pressed with liberty to the respondent to prefer appeal before the Supreme Court, the high court has stayed the direction of CESTAT for refund for a period of eight weeks". The bench issued a notice to the revenue department, seeking its response within six weeks on the firm's plea challenging the high court order. "In the meanwhile, impugned order of the high court dated June 12, 2025 shall remain stayed," the bench said. "This order shall, however, not preclude the respondent from filing appeal before this court under section 35L of the Central Excise Act, 1944, if not already filed, which shall be decided on its own merits and/or limitation," the bench said and posted the matter for further hearing on July 2.
Economic Times
05-05-2025
- Business
- Economic Times
Samsung moves CESTAT, challenges $500 mn penalty
Samsung India is contesting a penalty exceeding $500 million imposed by Indian customs authorities at the Customs Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT). The dispute centers on the alleged misclassification of imported telecom equipment, including networking gear supplied to Reliance Jio. Customs officials claim the misclassification led to lower tariffs than applicable, prompting the substantial penalty. Tired of too many ads? Remove Ads Tired of too many ads? Remove Ads Popular in Cons. Products Consumer electronic major Samsung India has moved the Customs Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal ( CESTAT ), challenging a penalty amount of more than half a billion dollars imposed on it by government officials, according to industry sources. The Indian custom authorities had imposed a penalty of over USD 500 million on Samsung earlier this year, for allegedly wrongly classifying the import of telecom equipment, including networking said order has been challenged by Samsung India before the Mumbai bench of the the appellate tribunal CESTAT, the sources told has sent emailed questions to Samsung regarding the issue, but is yet to receive a petition, which has been moved through law firm Lakshmikumaran & Sridharan before the appellate tribunal, is yet to be listed for hearing, they may come up for hearing in due course before a CESTAT bench, they has supplied those network equipment to Reliance Jio , the leading telecom service provider, part of billionaire Mukesh Ambani 's Reliance to the sources, the network division of Samsung India has allegedly misclassified the equipment, attracting a tariff of 10-20 per cent. This was objected to by the customs department earlier India Electronics had reported revenues of nearly Rs 1 lakh crore for 2023-24, in which its network business' share was Rs 16,626 crore.
Time of India
04-05-2025
- Business
- Time of India
Samsung India challenges $500 million customs penalty over Telecom equipment imports
Consumer electronics giant Samsung India approached the customs, excise and service tax appellate tribunal ( CESTAT ) in Mumbai to contest a massive penalty of over $500 million (almost Rs 4,200 crore) imposed by Indian customs authorities. The penalty was imposed after allegations that the electronic giant wrongly classified certain telecom equipment imports , such as networking gear, leading to a lower customs duty. Sources told PTI that the network division of Samsung India used classifications that attracted 10–20% duties. A similar allegation was previously flagged by the customs department. The company supplied the network equipment in question to Reliance Jio , the telecom arm of billionaire Mukesh Ambani's Reliance Industries. Samsung's appeal has been filed through law firm Lakshmikumaran & Sridharan, but the matter is yet to be listed for hearing before the Mumbai bench of CESTAT. Samsung India Electronics reported revenues nearing Rs 1 lakh crore for the financial year 2023–24, with Rs 16,626 crore attributed to its network business alone. Stay informed with the latest business news, updates on bank holidays and public holidays . AI Masterclass for Students. Upskill Young Ones Today!– Join Now
