Page 135 - ELT_1st August 2020_Vol 373_Part 3

2020 ] COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, HYDERABAD v. SYED JAMEEL UDDIN 317

the meaning of Section 2(34) of the Customs Act, 1962 nor a Central Excise Of-
ficer for the purpose of Section 11A of the Central Excise Act, 1944, to demand
Excise duty vide impugned show cause notice.
73. Further, the demand proposed is revenue neutral inasmuch as the
duty paid by the supplier is available by way of rebate under the provisions of
the Central Excise Rules, 2002.
74. Even otherwise in view of the consistent policy of Government to
allow procurement of goods from 2012 vide 2012 Guidelines dated 21-3-2012 and
thereafter 2016 Guidelines dated 16-9-2016, denial of the benefit of procurement
of goods without payment of duty is unsustainable under the impugned 2015
Guidelines dated 6-4-2015.
75. Even otherwise there is no rationale in recognising exemption vide
2012 Guidelines and withdrawing the same the year 2015 vide impugned 2015
Guideline and thereafter reintroducing the same in the year 2016 with slight
modification.
76. In the light of the above discussion both the writ petitions stand al-
lowed. Connected miscellaneous petitions are closed. No cost.

_______

2020 (373) E.L.T. 317 (Telangana)
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA
AT HYDERABAD
M.S. Ramachandra Rao and T. Amarnath Goud, JJ.
COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, HYDERABAD
Versus
SYED JAMEEL UDDIN
Central Excise Appeal No. 55 of 2019, decided on 13-2-2020
1
Customs House Agent License - Revocation and forfeiture of security
deposit - Fraudulent exports - Show cause notice alleging license sublet to Shri
Uma Mahesh, Managing Partner of V.D. Logistics for ` 25,000 per month and
violation of conditions of Customs Broker Licensing Regulations, 2013 for
non-verification of antecedent and existence of exporters - Assessee claiming
statement obtained from Shri Uma Mahesh under duress and shipping bills
on two importers filed by them after verifying IEC with JDGFT, addresses of
parties and CST number - When statement retracted by Shri Uma Mahesh al-
leging that statement taken from him under duress under Section 108 of Cus-
toms Act, 1962, officials of the Revenue had not confronted him with the bank
transfers to establish that the licence was sublet by the respondent to the said
Shri S. Uma Mahesh for consideration - Accordingly, Tribunal rightly gave
benefit of doubt to respondent - Tribunal’s order cannot be said to be perverse
based on no evidence or contrary to law - Regulations 10, 11(a), 17(a), 18 and 22
of Customs Brokers Licensing Regulations, 2013. [paras 13, 17]
Appeal dismissed
________________________________________________________________________
1 On appeal from 2019 (369) E.L.T. 1053 (Tribunal).
EXCISE LAW TIMES  1st August 2020  135