HomeIndirect TaxesPetition Challenging Tariff Notifications Imposing Fixed Rate Of Tariff On Imports Of...

Petition Challenging Tariff Notifications Imposing Fixed Rate Of Tariff On Imports Of Gold Findings: Telangana High Court Stays Custom Duty Demand 

Published on

🚀 Stay Connected With JurisHour

WhatsApp X Telegram

The Telangana High Court has stayed the demand in the petition challenging tariff notifications imposing fixed rate of tariff on imports of gold findings.

The bench of Justice Sujoy Paul and Justice Namavarapu Rajeshwar Rao has granted a stay on demand raised for alleged non-payment of Customs Duties as per Tariff Notifications.

Background

The petitioners/assessee has already declared assessable value as Rs.8,70,37,797 and paid total custom duty at the rate of 14.33% to the tune of Rs.1,24,72,516. 

As per the demand, the petitioners need to pay a difference to the tune of Rs.6,06,044. This difference is arising out of the notification, which is bad in law, because the respondent/department failed to provide the tariff value on the purity of gold.

In the present batch of Petitions, the petitioner has challenged the Tariff Notifications imposing a fixed rate of tariff on Imports of Gold Findings regardless of the purity of Gold Content. Subsequent OIOs issued relying on Notifications.

Conclusion 

The court has held the sizeable amount already paid by the petitioner(s) and since prima facie case is made out, subject to hearing the other side, till the next date of hearing, no coercive action be taken against the petitioners.

Read More: Analysis Of Canon Judgement Review By Supreme Court

Case Details

Case Title: M/s. SR Jewellery House Versus Union of India

Case No.:  WP 22805/2024

Date: 07/11/2024

Counsel For Petitioner: Rusheek Reddy K V

Counsel For Respondent: Dy. Solicitor Gen. Of India Gadi Praveen Kumar 

Mariya Paliwala
Mariya Paliwalahttps://www.jurishour.in/
Mariya is the Senior Editor at Juris Hour. She has 7+ years of experience on covering tax litigation stories from the Supreme Court, High Courts and various tribunals including CESTAT, ITAT, NCLAT, NCLT, etc. Mariya graduated from MLSU Law College, Udaipur (Raj.) with B.A.LL.B. and also holds an LL.M. She started her career as a freelance tax reporter in the leading online legal news companies.

Latest articles

Dept. Can’t Levy Both Service Tax and Central Excise on Same Job Work: CESTAT

The Chandigarh Bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has...

Refund Can’t Be Credited to Consumer Welfare Fund Merely Because CENVAT Reversal Was Booked as Expense: CESTAT

The Principal Bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), New...

Refund of Tax Paid Under Mistake of Law Not Time-Barred, But Builder Can’t Claim Refund After Passing Burden to Buyers: CESTAT

The Principal Bench of the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), New...

Transit Pass Alone Not Enough to Escape KVAT Penalty: Karnataka High Court Upholds Action Where Evidence Suggests Tax Evasion

The Karnataka High Court has ruled that the mere issuance and surrender of a...

More like this

Dept. Can’t Levy Both Service Tax and Central Excise on Same Job Work: CESTAT

The Chandigarh Bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has...

Refund Can’t Be Credited to Consumer Welfare Fund Merely Because CENVAT Reversal Was Booked as Expense: CESTAT

The Principal Bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), New...

Refund of Tax Paid Under Mistake of Law Not Time-Barred, But Builder Can’t Claim Refund After Passing Burden to Buyers: CESTAT

The Principal Bench of the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), New...