Chartered Accountant
Bookmark and Share
click here to subscribe our newsletter
 
 
Corporate News *   CBIC issues draft rules for Customs valuation *  Top Headlines: Threshold for Benami deals, green bond investors, and more *  Govt aims 1-hour clearance for goods at all ports *  Exporters Allowed To Use RoDTEP, RoSCTL Scrips To Pay Customs Duty, Transfer Them; Rules Amended *  Millions of labourers to be affected by brick producers’ strike over hike in GST, coal rates *  Inauguration of ‘kendriya GST parisar’ *  Transporter can seek Release of Conveyance alone, not Goods under GST Act: Madras HC *  GST: Quoting of DIN Mandatory for Responding to Notice, Govt Modifies Portal *  Firms can soon file claims for GST credits of ?400 cr *  CBIC issues modalities for filing transitional credit under GST. *  Mumbai: Man creates 36 fake GST firms, arrested for input tax credit fraud of Rs 23 cr *  Report to restructure Commerce Ministry under study; idea is to set up trade promotion body: Goyal *  Firms can soon file claims for GST credits of ?400 cr *  Gambling Alert! Govt May Levy Up To 28% GST; UP, Bengal Back Move *  EPFO backs raising retirement age to ease pressure on pension funds *  India Moving Up Power Scale, Set to Become Third Largest Economy By 2030 *  Airfares Get Expensive: What Changes for Flyers From Today? *  IRCTC Latest News: Passengers to Pay More For Cancelling Confirmed Rail Tickets Soon. *  IBC prevails over Customs Act, says Supreme Court. *  As GST enters sixth year, a time for evaluation and reassessment *  There’s GST on daily essentials as Centre needs money to buy MLAs: Arvind Kejriwal *  Now, GST on cancellation of confirmed train tickets, hotel bookings *  GST kitty for top States could rise 20% in FY23, says Crisil *  French customs officials seize another cargo vessel over Russia sanctions *  TradeLens builds on Asia momentum with Pakistan Customs deal *  Hike tax on tobacco, reduce affordability & increase revenue: Civil society organizations to GST council *  Bihar: ?10 crore tax evasion on tobacco products detected in raids *  Centre failed on GST, COVID; would it be anti-national? Rajan on Infosys row *  Service Tax not Chargeable on Income Tax TDS portion paid by recipient: CESTAT grants relief to TVS *  Foreign portfolio investors make net investment of Rs 7575cr in Sep so far
Subject News *  Run-up to Budget: Monetary threshold for GST offences may rise to Rs 25 cr *   GST (Tax) E-invoice Must For Businesses With Over Rs 5 Crore Annual Turnover *   Both Central GST and excise duty can be imposed on tobacco, rules Karnataka high court *   CBIC Issues Clarification On Extended Timelines For GST Compliance *   CBIC Issues Clarification On Extended Timelines For GST Compliance *  Budget 2023- 9.6 crore gas connections *  GST: Tamil Nadu Issues Instructions for Assessment and Adjudication Proceedings *  GST: CBIC Extends Last Date for filing of ITC *  GST collection in September surpasses Rs 1.4 lakh crore for straight seventh time *  Dollar smuggling case: Customs chargesheet names M Sivasankar as key conspirator. *  Hike in GST rates fuels inflation *  Assam: CBI arrests GST commissioner in Guwahati *  GST fraud worth ?824cr by 15 insurance Cos detected *  India proposes 15% customs duties on 22 items imported from UK *  Decriminalising certain offences under GST on cards *  Surge in GST collections more due to higher inflation: India Ratings *  MNRE Notifies BCD and Hike in GST Rates as ‘Change in Law’ Events But With a Condition | Mercom India *   Solar projects awarded before customs duty change allowed cost pass-through *  Rajasthan High Court Dismisses Writ Petitions Challenging Levy Of GST On Royalty *   GST revenue in September likely at Rs 1.45 lakh crore *  Govt working on decriminalising certain offences under GST, lower compounding charge *  Building an institution like GST Council takes time, trashing is easy: Sitharaman *  GST collections in Sept may touch ?1.5 lakh crore *  KTR asks Centre to withdraw GST on handlooms *  After Gameskraft, More Online Gaming Startups To Receive GST Tax Claims *  Madras HC: AAR Application Filed Under VAT Does Not Survive After GST Enactment *  Threshold for criminal offences under GST law may be raised *  Bengaluru: Gaming company faces biggest GST notice of Rs 21,000 crore *  CBIC clarifies Classification of Cranes for GST, Customs Duty *  Customs seize gold hidden in bicycle in Kerala airport  

Comments

Print   |    |  Comment

PJ/Case Laws/2010-11/1082

Credit on fake invoices of non-existent supplier- equal penalty when imposable on assessee

Case: C.C.E. & C., Surat-I v/s Chandrakanta Dyeing & Printing Mills
 
Citation: 2011 (263) ELT 331 (Guj.)
 
Issue:- Credit taken on fake invoices of non-existent supplier – no evidence adduced by Revenue showing involvement of assessee – Equal penalty cannot be imposed.
 
Brief Facts:- The respondent-assessee was registered as a manufacturer of man-made fabrics. It had availed of Cenvat credit on grey fabrics during March 2004. Subsequently, investigations revealed that the suppliers of grey fabrics who had issued the invoices, on the basis of which the assessee had availed credit, were found to be non existent/fake/bogus.
 
Accordingly, a show case notice was issued to the assessee wherein the Adjudicating Authority disallowed the credit taken on fake/forged invoices and imposed equal amount of penalty and demanded interest at the appropriate rate.
 
In appeal, the Commissioner (Appeals) partly allowed the appeal insofar as the same related to penalty and confirmed the demand of credit wrongly availed with interest. The Commissioner (Appeals) modified the Order-in-Original by substituting the penalty imposed under Section 13(2) to penalty under Rule 13(1) of CCR, 2002.
 
Being aggrieved, the Revenue has preferred appeal before the Tribunal which came to be dismissed. Hence, Revenue has filed this appeal before the High Court.
 
Reasoning of the Judgment:- The High Court perused the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) wherein a finding of fact was recorded that by failing to verify the writer of the invoices, by its acts and omissions, the assessee had facilitated the fraud. However, the evidence is not sufficient to conclude that the assessee was a party to the fraud. The Commissioner (Appeals) further noted that no investigations had been carried out to bring out that the assessee was party to fraud or that the Cenvat Credit had been availed in contravention of the Rules with intention to evade central excise duty. It was observed that though the Adjudicating Authority has concluded that the acts and contravention were committed by the assessee by suppression of facts with intent to avail inadmissible credit, there was no mention of any specific suppression. According to the Commissioner [Appeals], the conclusion of suppression of facts with intent to avail wrong credit was based on conjunctures and surmises and not on any solid evidence, and as such, the finding of the Adjudicating Authority based on which mandatory penalty had been invoked was not just and proper.
 
The High Court observed that it is in the aforesaid backdrop that the Commissioner had thought it fit to hold that the assessee was more appropriately liable for penalty under Section 13 (1) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2002 (the Rules) rather than section 13 (2) thereof.
 
The High Court also perused the order of the Tribunal wherein the Tribunal had confirmed the findings recorded by the Commissioner (Appeals) and had held that the assessee can be found fault with for not taking reasonable steps as contemplated under Rule 7 of the Rules, but it cannot be held liable to pay penalty under Section 11AC of the Act.
 
Thus, the High Court held that both the Commissioner [Appeals] as well as the Tribunal have, upon appreciation of evidence on record, found, as a matter of fact, that the evidence on record was not sufficient to conclude that the assessee was a party to the fraud and that there was nothing to indicate that the assessee had availed or Cenvat credit in contravention of the Rules with intention to evade central excise duty. Based upon the aforesaid finding of fact, the Tribunal has held that the assessee would be liable to penalty under Rule 13 (1) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2002 and not under section Rule 13 (2) of the Rules.
 
The High Court then referred to the provisions of Rule 13 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2002 and held that from a reading of the said Rule it is apparent that the same can be invoked in a case, where the CENVAT credit has been taken or utilized wrongly on account of fraud, willful mis-statement, collusion or suppression of facts, or contravention of any of the provisions of the Act or the rules made thereunder with intention to evade payment of duty, in which case the manufacturer would be liable to pay penalty in terms of section 11AC of the Act. Thus, a condition precedent for invoking the provisions of sub-rule (2) of rule 13 of the Rules there should be a finding to the effect that the manufacturer has taken or wrongly utilized the CENVAT credit on account of fraud, willful mis-statement, collusion or suppression of facts, or contravention of any of the provisions of the Act or the rules made thereunder with intention to evade payment of duty.
 
Examining the facts of the present case in the light of the aforesaid statutory provision, both the Commissioner (Appeals) as well as the Tribunal have recorded concurrent findings of fact to the effect that evidence on record is not sufficient to conclude that the assessee is a party to the fraud. It has also been recorded that the findings of the Adjudicating Authority that there is suppression of facts with intent to avail wrong credit is based on conjectures and surmise and not on solid evidence. On behalf of the Revenue, nothing has been pointed out to dislodge the concurrent findings of fact recorded by both the appellate authorities. In the light of the aforesaid concurrent findings of fact recorded by both, the Commissioner [Appeals] as well as the Tribunal, it is apparent that the conditions precedent for invoking the provisions of Rule 13 (2) of the Rules are clearly not satisfied. In the circumstances, no infirmity can be found in the impugned order of the Tribunal so as to warrant interference.
 
Decision:- Appeal dismissed.
 
Comments:- This is very good decision wherein it is held that the penalty cannot be imposed on the assessee taking the credit unless it is established that he was also involved in fraud on issuing fake invoices.  
 

***********

Department News


Query

 
PRADEEP JAIN, F.C.A.

Head Office : -

Address :
"SUGYAN", H - 29, SHASTRI NAGAR, JODHPUR (RAJ.) - 342003

Phone No. :
0291 - 2439496, 0291 - 3258496

Mobile No. :
09314722236

Fax No. :0291 - 2439496


Branch Office : -

Address:
1008, 10th FLOOR, SUKH SAGAR COMPLEX,
NEAR FORTUNE LANDMARK HOTEL, USMANPURA,
ASHRAM ROAD, AHMEDABAD-380013

Phone No. :
079-32999496, 27560043

Mobile No. :
093777659496, 09377649496

E-mail :pradeep@capradeepjain.com