Chartered Accountant
Bookmark and Share
click here to subscribe our newsletter
 
 
Corporate News *  Service tax penalty can’t survive when assessee acted on dept.’s own view of non-taxability: Delhi High Court. *  GST section 74 extended limitation questionable when form 26AS mismatch was already known: Karnataka High Court grants interim relief. *  CGST demand prima facie impermissible after state GST settlement under section 128A: Bombay High Court. *  Supreme Court asks GSTAT to sympathetically consider delay as taxpayers pursued remedy before wrong forum. *  Supreme Court stays Tripura High Court ruling protecting genuine buyers from ITC denial over supplier’s GST default. *  Diary entries alone can’t prove clandestine removal of goods: CESTAT quashes excise penalty on steel trader. *  Customs could investigate preferential tariff claims even before sec. 28DA: Delhi High Court. *  Customs dept. relied on fake AI generated case laws: supreme court quashes Rs. 425.28 crore penalty. *  No GST exemption in affiliation and annual registration charges for admission or conduct Of examinations: GSTAT. *  Mere invoices, cheque payments insufficient to establish genuine movement of goods: GSTAT restores Rs. 43.44 lakh ITC demand. *  Consolidated GST show cause notice covering multiple financial years is not without jurisdiction: Delhi High Court. *  Construction of independent houses on separate plots not taxable as ‘Residential Complex’ without common facilities: CESTAT. *  GST penalty exceeding statutory maximum unsustainable; Allahabad High Court quashes ? 50,000/- penalty after taxpayer filed return and paid late fee. *  GST order against standard chartered bank passed without hearing set aside by Bombay High Court. *  Retracted statements can’t be relied upon without cross-examination: CESTAT quashes gold confiscation. *  Burden to prove misclassification lies on customs department: CESTAT. *  CESTAT quashes Rs. 98 lakh excise demand on clearance of used refractory brick scrap. *  Service tax demand on irrigation works quashed: Karnataka High Court rules sale of goods component not taxable as service. *  GSTAT restores tax and penalty for transporting iron scrap without E-way bill citing intent to evade tax. *  Madras High Court stays GST recovery from directors without opportunity to show cause under section 89. *  Madras high court stays GST recovery notice against directors; finds prima facie case on applicability of section 79(1)(c). *  Procedural lapses can’t justify harsh punishment without serious customs breach: CESTAT quashes customs broker licence revocation. *  Service tax payable on land leasing and sports complex charges: CESTAT. *  Settled customs dispute can’t be reopened through Article 226 challenge to interest liability: Delhi High Court. *  Mere facilitation of customs clearance can’t establish knowledge of smuggling: Madras High Court. *  GST registration cancellation stayed: Allahabad High Court questions 99% ITC utilisation cap under rule 86B. *  Composition scheme lapses automatically on crossing Rs. 1.5 crore turnover: GSTAT. *  Gujarat High Court quashes GST cancellation orders after officer relied on non-existent AI-generated case laws. *  Importers liable for customs duty benefits availed through manipulated scrips: Delhi High Court. *  Procedural E-way bill lapse alone can’t justify penalty where genuine transaction and absence of tax evasion are established: GSTAT.
Subject News *  Documentary evidence dominates probe, further custody unwarranted: mumbai court grants bail in Rs. 22.44 crore customs duty evasion case. *  Business premises can’t remain sealed for non-participation in GST search: Allahabad High Court. *  GST pre-deposit must be refunded proportionately when taxpayer partly succeeds in appeal: Bombay High Court. *  Supreme Court grants 30 days to file GST appeal; keeps pre-deposit issue open due to deposit in parallel CGST proceedings. *  GST demand can’t exceed amount proposed in SCN: Allahabad High Court quashes Rs. 20.47 Crore order. *  Hundreds-of-crores GST demand and heavy 10% pre-deposit no ground to bypass statutory appeal: Punjab & Haryana High Court. *  Delhi High Court refuses to entertain challenge to gold confiscation due to statutory appeal remedy and unexplained delay. *  Procedural error in customs broker licence inquiry can be rectified through remand: Delhi High Court. *  GSTR-2A mismatch alone can’t justify ITC denial without invoice-wise verification; personal hearing mandatory: GSTAT. *  GST order passed without uploading personal hearing notices violates sec. 75(4): Allahabad High Court. *  TAX EVASION - Sec. 74 GST SCN quashed for not spelling out fraud, wilful misstatement or suppression: Allahabad High Court. *  STPI’s SOFTEX certification and NoC charges taxable as business support services: CESTAT. *  Suspicion can’t replace proof: CESTAT quashes penalty in alleged gold-smuggling operation. *   Limitation runs from communication of order: Madras High Court upholds rejection of delayed GST Appeals. *  Rajasthan High Court quashes GST demand over unsigned show cause notice. *  ITC recovery upheld where supplier failed to deposit GST: Rajasthan High Court. *  Customs commissioner’s empowered to make port trust liable for duty on pilfered goods: Supreme Court. *  Rectification proceedings can’t be used to challenge an uncontested GST assessment through a writ petition: Andhra Pradesh HC. *  GST proceedings against deceased proprietor unsustainable without notice to legal heir: GSTAT. *  Mere availment of ineligible self-assessed ITC doesn’t amount to suppression without evidence of fraud or wilful misstatement: GSTAT. *  Disposal of mining overburden by entity authorised by mining lease holder constitutes taxable service: CESTAT. *  Toll plaza data not mandatory for ITC refund: GSTAT. *  Disputed GST fraud allegations require investigation: Punjab and Haryana High Court makes interim bail absolute in alleged fraud and GST fraud case. *  Non-manufacturer contractor liable to deposit excess excise duty collected from buyer: CESTAT. *  GST order can’t reject taxpayer’s reply as “not satisfactory” without reasons: Madhya Pradesh High Court. *  Uncorroborated statements can’t establish alleged diversion of duty-free goods: CESTAT. *  Erection services were not liable to service tax prior to 10th september 2004: CESTAT. *  Sec. 74 GST notice must spell out statutory ingredients for invoking extended tax demand proceedings: Allahabad High Court. *  No jurisdictional bar under section 6(2)(b) in parallel CGST SGST proceedings: Delhi High Court refuses to bypass GST appeal remedy. *  Madras High Court remits GST demand for fresh adjudication after taxpayer claims it was unaware of SCN following business closure.  

Comments

Print   |    |  Comment

PJ/Case Laws/2012-13/1117

DEPB scheme – misdeclaration and over-invoicing alleged for fraudulently availing benefit – Investigation showing goods exported were non-allot steel items – held, no case made out for waiver of pre-deposit – appellant directed to deposit 25% of penalty a

Case:  M/s Girnar Impex Ltd. And Ors V/s CC, Amritsar
 
Citation: 2012-TIOL-136-CESTAT-DEL
 
Issue:- DEPB scheme – misdeclaration and over-invoicing alleged for fraudulently availing benefit – Investigation showing goods exported were non-allot steel items – held, no case made out for waiver of pre-deposit – appellant directed to deposit 25% of penalty and suppliers of invoices directed to deposit Rs.50 lakhs each.  
 
Brief Facts:- Appellant i.e. M/s. Girnar Impex Ltd. of M/s. Siri Amar Exports were engaged in export of non alloy steel bars, rods bright bars etc. under the Duty Entitlement Pass Book (DEPB). Shri Adishwar Jain is the Director of M/s. Girnar Impex Ltd. and M/s. Siri Amar Exports. He was also the Managing Director of M/s. Sundesh Springs Pvt. Ltd., who is engaged in the manufacture of non alloy steels and bars and rods. The said unit was selling the goods manufactured by them to M/s. Girnar Impex Ltd and M/s. Siri Amar Exports. The business premises of all the appellants were put to search by the officers of DRI, Ludhiana and various incriminating documents including the blank letter heads of the State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur as also of foreign buyer i.e. M/s. Azhad Trading Company, rubber stamps of various departments recovered along with parallel sets of invoices retrieved from the computer of Shri Adishwar Jain. Statements of various persons were recorded during the course of further investigations, based upon which show cause notice was issued.
 
The Adjudicating Authority held that M/s. Girnar Impex Ltd. and M/s. Siri Amar Exports have fraudulently availed DEPB incentive by mis-declaring the goods exported by them as also by over invoicing the same. The above findings are based upon the recovery of parallel invoices from the briefcase of Shri Adishwar Jain. The statements of Shri Adishwar Jain recorded during the course of investigations admitted that they had shown the export of alloy steel items whereas they had actually exported non alloy steel items. The value of the goods submitted to the Customs and the Banks in India was inflated, in order to avail higher DEPB benefits. He also admitted that the over invoicing of the export goods was to the tune of 10 to 20 times more than the normal value. Shri Rajesh Lakhanpal, computer operator in M/s. Girnar Impex Ltd. also admitted that Shri Adishwar Jain was using parallel sets of export invoices from his computer. The said parallel sets of invoices reflected the inflated value of the goods and the same was being shown to the Customs with the motive of availing higher DEPB benefits. During the course of investigations, various shipping bills were shown to Shri Adishwar Jain, who confessed that the items declared therein were mis -declared in quality and higher value was shown.
 
Revenue also conducted the enquiries from the Consul (Economic), Consulate General of India, Dubai who vide their office letter dated 12.05.04 sent the details of goods exported from India and confirmed that the invoices with lower values were presented at the Dubai Customs Clearance.
 
Shri Adishwar Jain in his further statement admitted the entries made in the recovered notebooks showing the details of hawala transactions and deposed that the differential amount of exported goods and inflated value of exported goods was being adjusted through hawala sources. He also decoded the expression RNP as referring to one Raju and Pinki who used to collect hawala payments from him. Shri Devinder Singh Narang, Partner in M/s. Simran Bright Bar Industries, Ludhiana and Erstwhile Director of M/s. Girnar Impex Ltd., in his statements admitted having handed over the money to Shri Pinki. Similarly Shri Amarjit Singh, Accounts Manager in the firms of Shri Adishwar Jain disclosed in his statements that he used to hand over the money withdrawn by him from his firms to Shri Bimal Prakash Jain, father of Shri Adishwar Jain who then used to speak in coded language with Raju, Pinki and Lucky regarding hawala.
 
Further enquiries were made from M/s. S.P. Industrial Corporation, Ludhiana and M/s. P.J. Sales Corporation, alleged manufacturer of the goods. Shri Prabjot Singh, Proprietor of M/s. S.P. Industrial Corporation admitted having only supplied the bills for alloy steels, without actual supply of material, on the basis of commission. He clarified that the bills were being issued in the name of the three firms M/s. Sundesh Springs Pvt. Ltd., M/s. Girnar Impex Ltd. and M/s. Siri Amar Exports, all belonging to Shri Adishwar Jain and as per the instructions of Shri Adishwar Jain, these transactions were never reflected in the account books, finance books, sales tax returns or income tax returns etc. The bill amount paid by Shri Adishwar Jain was subsequently being withdrawn by Shri Adishwar Jain through Shri Amarjit Singh, his employee, for which purposes he used to offer 10 to 20 blank self cheques in advance to Shri Adishwar Jain.
 
The disclosers made by Shri Prabjot Singh were admitted by Shri Adishwar Jain in his subsequent statements, who elaborated his modus operandi and on being confronted on certain checks admitted having withdrawn the amounts on the basis of the pre-signed cheques given to him by Shri Prabjot Singh, Shri Darshan Kumar Sharma, Sales Tax Clerk in M/s. Sundesh Springs Pvt. Ltd. also confirmed the fact of withdrawal of money from the accounts of M/s. S.P. Industrial Corporation. The above practice was also confirmed by Shri Amarjit Singh, Accounts Manager in the firms of Shri Adishwar Jain. Shri Devinder Singh Narang, Partner in M/s. Simran Bright Bar Industries and Erstwhile Director of M/s. Girnar Impex Ltd. admitted that 90% of the iron and steel bars supplied by them to M/s. Sundesh Springs Pvt. Ltd. were non alloy steel bars for which false bills showing the sale of alloy steel bars were being raised by them on commission basis, without the actual supply of any material.
 
In addition to the above evidences, the Commissioner has also relied upon the chemical examiner's report dated 20.01.04 in respect of a sample drawn from the live export consignment. In terms of the said report the goods were found to be "other than alloy steel, whereas the same were declared as alloy steels of the appellants". The Commissioner has also referred to the evidences showing that the alloy steel items were actually net being manufactured by the various suppliers who have only raised the bills. The goods were being purchased by M/s. Sundesh Springs Pvt. Ltd., Ludhianaand after bringing the same to their factory premises, they were being repacked and exported by showing the same as alloy steel items. The above facts stand corroborated from the statement of Shri Rajesh Chopra, Production Supervisor of M/s, Sundesh Springs Pvt. Ltd. Similarly Shri Raghu vir Singh, Factory Manager of M/s. Sundesh Springs Pvt. Ltd. admitted that they have never manufactured alloy steel bars flanks or shorn etc. in the factory, not purchased these alloy steel items from outside. The Commissioner has also referred to the statements of various other suppliers admitting that alloy steel items were never manufactured and supplied by them to the various firms of Shri Adishwar Jain.
 
On the above basis, the Commissioner has come to a categorical finding that Shri Adishwar Jain along with his firms M/s. Girnar Impex Ltd., M/s. Siri Amar. Exports and M/s. Sundesh Springs Pvt. Ltd. had knowingly mis-declared and over invoiced the export goods with intention to defraud the exchequer by availing the undue benefit of DEPB to the tune of Rs.13,56,73,200/-. Accordingly, the Commissioner has imposed penalties on the appellants.
 
Appellants are in appeal before the Tribunal. Stay applications are also filed.
 
Reasoning of Judgment:- At this interim stage, the High Court was of the view that there is enough material on record to reflect upon the clandestine activities of Shri Adishwar Jain. The statements of Shri Adishwar Jain recorded during the course of investigations, read with the statements of the other co-noticees, revealing the modus operandi of the exporting firms, clearly indicate the misuse of the DEPB scheme. Further the recovery of the parallel set of invoices, the fact of encashing the cheques withdrawing the money from the banks, are all corroborative of the fact that the said exporting firms were indulging in over invoicing the exporting goods. As such the High Court was of the view that the said appellants have not been able to make out a prima-facie good case in their favour so as to unconditionally dispense with the condition of pre-deposit of penalties. As such taking into account the overall facts and circumstances of the case, the High Court directed Shri Adishwar Jain, M/s. Girnar Impex Ltd., M/s. Sundesh Springs Pvt. Ltd. and M/s. Siri Amar Exports to deposit 25% of the penalties imposed upon them within a period of 12 weeks from today. Subject to which the pre-deposit of the balance amounts of duties stand dispensed with and its recovery stayed during the pendency of the appeals.
 
As regards imposition of penalty of Rs. 3.50 crores each on M/s. Simran Bright Bar Industries and Shri Devinder Singh Narang, the High Court found that the penalties stand imposed upon them under the provisions of Section 114 of the Customs Act, 1962 in as much as they deliberately participated in the fraud of the exporting firms, by facilitating the issue of only the invoices, on commission basis, without the actual issuance of the goods. As such, High Court is of the view that they have also not been able to make out a prima-facie case in their favour so as to allow their stay petitions unconditionally. However, keeping in view that they were only the supplier of the invoices working on commission basis, High Court directed M/s. Simran Bright Bar Industries and Shri Devinder Singh Narang to deposit an amount of Rs.50 lakhs each as a condition of hearing of their appeal, in terms of the provisions of Section 35F. The said deposits are required to be made within a period of 12 weeks from today.
 
Decision:- Stay application disposed off.

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