/** * The main template file * * This is the most generic template file in a WordPress theme * and one of the two required files for a theme (the other being style.css). * It is used to display a page when nothing more specific matches a query. * E.g., it puts together the home page when no home.php file exists. * * @link https://developer.wordpress.org/themes/basics/template-hierarchy/ * * @package WordPress * @subpackage Tally * @since 1.0.0 */ ?>
In Sinochem India Company Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India & Ors. [Writ Petition (L) No. 13894 of 2021] and in Hindustan Unilever Ltd. v. The Union of India & Ors, [Writ Petition (L) No. 8163 of 2021] involve a common question of fact and law and have been heard together, the common conflict herein is regarding amendment of Bill of Entry (“BOE”), seeking amendment in GSTIN and the address in the BOE.
The Department submitted that once the goods are ‘out of charge’, any application for amendment cannot be entertained in exercise of power conferred by Section 149 of the Customs Act, 1962 (“the Customs Act”).
The Hon’ble Bombay High Court relied upon the decision in the case of Dimension Data India Private Ltd. v. Commissioner of Customs and Anr. [Writ Petition (L) No. 249 of 2020 dated January 18, 2021] which correctly interprets Section 149 ibid and wherein it was held that amendment to the Bill of Entry is clearly permissible even in a situation where the goods are cleared.
Further, held that the Sinochem India Company Pvt. Ltd. and Hindustan Unilever Ltd. (“the Petitioners”) had prayed for amendment of documents only, which is squarely covered under Section 149 of the Customs Act, any deficiency in the system cannot be used by the Department as a shield so as to deny relief to a party, if indeed the system does not permit, the deficiency has to be covered up manually until improvements are effected in the system for such amendment. The grounds for not allowing amendments are clearly untenable and hence, judicial interdiction for securing justice in the present cases is considered necessary.
Petition disposed of by directing the Department to consider the applications for amendment of the documents of the respective Petitioners in accordance with law, upon granting the authorized representative of the Petitioners an opportunity of hearing, as early as possible but not later than four weeks of receipt of a copy of this order.
Online GST Course by Bimal Jain
Recorded: Certified Advanced GST Course
Course Details: Certificate of Participation will be Provided, Free GST Updates on E-mail, WhatsApp, Telegram for 1 Year, Background Material and PPT will be Provided on the downloadable basis, Total 21 Recorded Sessions (60 Hours), will be available for 120 hours or 60 Days whichever expires earlier.
For Registration:- https://cutt.ly/hxjl5Cu
Recorded: GST Course on Exports, Deemed Exports, SEZ, Imports, Merchandise Exports, Inverted Duty Structure (including Refunds)
Course Details: 6 Online Recorded Sessions of 2.30Hrs each with Background Material (BGM)
For Registration:- https://cutt.ly/pvw7mzl
For more details,
Call: +91-8076563802 | E-mail: intern@a2ztaxcorp.com | Web: www.a2ztaxcorp.in
DISCLAIMER: The views expressed are strictly of the author and A2Z Taxcorp LLP. The contents of this article are solely for informational purpose and for the reader’s personal non-commercial use. It does not constitute professional advice or recommendation of firm. Neither the author nor firm and its affiliates accepts any liabilities for any loss or damage of any kind arising out of any information in this article nor for any actions taken in reliance thereon. Further, no portion of our article or newsletter should be used for any purpose(s) unless authorized in writing and we reserve a legal right for any infringement on usage of our article or newsletter without prior permission.
The CESTAT, New Delhi in the matter of M/s BBM Impex Pvt. Limited v. Principal Commissioner of Customs (Preventive) [Customs Early Hearing Application No.50414 of 2022 with Customs Appeal No. 51662 of
Read More
The CESTAT, New Delhi in the matter of M/s Prem Kumar Ojha v. Commissioner of Customs-Jaipur I [Customs Miscellaneous Application No. 50245 of 2022 dated July 04, 2022] held that, in view
Read More
The CESTAT, New Delhi in the matter of M/s Shri Shyam Ingot & Castings Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Customs & Central Excise [Excise Appeal No. 52550 of 2019-SM dated August 08, 2022] held
Read More
The CESTAT, Chennai in the matter of M/s. SK Enterprises v The Commissioner of Customs [CUSTOMS APPEAL No. 40017 of 2022 dated June 24, 2022] set aside and held that the revaluation of the goods
Read More
The Supreme Court of India in the matter of Sandoz Private Limited v. Union of India [Civil Appeal No. 3358 of 2020 dated January 4, 2020] upheld the decision of the Bombay High Court that Export
Read More