Chartered Accountant
Bookmark and Share
click here to subscribe our newsletter
 
 
Corporate News *  GST registration cancellation without reasons amounts to ‘Economic Death’ of business: Supreme Court. *  No GST refund if appeal before GSTAT is filed late: Gujarat High Court. *  Mere upload of GST notice on portal not valid service, appeal limitation won’t start: Punjab & Haryana High Court. *  Taxpayer can’t be penalised for missing notices hidden under ‘Additional Notices/Orders’: Calcutta High Court allows fresh adjudication. *  State tax officer can’t issue GST SCN beyond CBIC-assigned jurisdiction: Bombay High Court stays recovery proceedings. *  Earlier 7.5% Pre-Deposit must count towards mandatory 10% for Appeal: Uttarakhand high court quashes CESTAT Order. *  Third Parties can’t challenge GST Advance Rulings merely due to financial impact: Karnataka HC *  GST SCN generated using AI tool quashed: Punjab & Haryana High Court *  Bank Attachment Quashed as Madras HC Quashes GST Order Issued Against Deceased Person *  ITC Blocking Order for Failure to Record ‘Reason to Believe’ U/R 86A Quashed: Allahabad High Court *  Govt Extends GSTAT Appeal Filing Deadline From 30 June to July 31, 2026 *  GST Demand on RWA Stayed: Allahabad High Court Questions Taxability of Electricity Distribution to Flat Owners *  CBIC Clarifies Jurisdiction After GST Registration Transfer: Earlier Proceedings Remain Valid, New Officer to Continue Action *  GST authorities’ certification not mandatory for reimbursement, but tax payment must be proven: Karnataka HC *  Contractor can’t seek gst reimbursement through writ when contract has arbitration clause: Karnataka HC *  Unsigned Order Is No Order in Law: AP HC Quashes GST Assessment Order for Want of Officer’s Signature *  Customs Can’t Levy Rs. 1.36 Crore Cost Recovery Charges Without Proof of Full-Day Officer Deployment: CESTAT  *  12% IGST Payable On Imported Dialysis Machine Parts: CESTAT *  Bombay High Court Admits Challenge to GST Limitation Extension Notifications; Grants Protection Against Coercive Recovery *  Criminal Case Can’t Run Parallel to GST Proceedings on Same Facts: Allahabad High Court *  Allahabad High Court Stays GST Detention Order; Directs Release of Vehicle and Goods on Deposit of Rs. 1.44 Lakh *  Service Tax Can’t Be Levied on Loss-Making Contracts: Gujarat High Court *  GSTN Mandates Ship-to GSTIN in e-Invoice and e-Way Bill APIs; Introduces Voluntary e-Way Bill Closure Facility from August 1, 2026 *  GST Appeal Can’t Be Rejected as Time-Barred When Taxpayer Was Pursuing Rectification Remedy: Telangana High Court *  Absence of E-Way Bill and Transport Documents Justifies Customs Seizure U/s 110: Gauhati HC *  Madras High Court Upholds GST Late Fee and Penalty for Non-Filing of Annual Return, Dismisses Challenge  *  GST Records, Purchase Documents Sufficient to Discharge Burden Under Customs Act: CESTAT Orders Release of 3.65 Kg Gold  *  No Sugar Cess Payable on Sugar Exported Out of India: CESTAT *  Road Construction Services Exempt and SCN Time-Barred: CESTAT Quashes Service Tax Demand Based Solely on Form 26AS  *  ITC Freeze Upheld After GST Dept Find Suppliers Were Allegedly Fake Bill-Trading Entities: Madras HC 
Subject News *  Input service benefits can’t be denied: CESTAT allows export refund despite MMTC acting as Canalising agency. *  No service tax demand without proof of service of SCN: CESTAT. *  Service tax demand quashed as dept. fails to prove service of SCN: CESTAT *  GST : Mere allegation of inadequate consideration of reply not enough to invoke writ jurisdiction: Delhi High Court *  Onerous conditions imposed for provisional release of seized imported goods shouldn’t amount to virtual denial of relief: CESTAT. *  GST SCN without alleging fraud cannot invoke sec. 74: Karnataka High Court quashes adjudication order. *  Extended Limitation Can’t Be Invoked Merely on Form 26AS Data: CESTAT *  Revenue-Sharing with Restaurants Not Taxable as Business Support Service: CESTAT *  R. 6(3) Option Can’t Be Forced on Taxpayer; CESTAT Quashes Rs. 12.36 Crore CENVAT Credit Demand *  Excise Duty | Power Consumption Alone Can’t Prove Clandestine Manufacture: Karnataka High Court *  Madras High Court Examines DGGI’s Authority to Issue GST Penalty Orders Under Section 122, Adds DGGI as Party *  Proceedings under omitted r. 96(10) can’t survive without saving clause: andhra pradesh high court quashes gst refund recovery *  Excise duty power consumption alone can’t prove clandestine manufacture: karnataka high court *  Madras high court rules GST show cause notices must disclose grounds for invoking extended limitation *  Court Can’t Direct Extension GST Return Deadlines or Waive Interest and Penalties: Karnataka High Court *  GST Notifications Can’t Go Beyond GST Council Recommendations: Madras High Court Quashes SCN on Branded Pulses *  Appeal Can’t Be Dismissed for Delay When Dept’s Own Order Mis-states Limitation Period: CESTAT *  No Evidence of KYC or Due Diligence Breach By Customs Broker: CESTAT Quashes Licence Revocation in Export Overvaluation Case *  Glucometers Are Chemical Analysis Instruments Classifiable Under Tariff Heading 9027: CESTAT *  Validity of Post-GST Service Tax Proceedings Upheld: Gujarat High Court Dismisses Challenge to S. 73 SCN *  Rectified GST Refund Applications Can’t Be Rejected as Time-Barred If Original Refund Claim Was Filed Within Limitation: Gujarat HC *  Service Tax Refund Can’t Be Denied as Time-Barred When Levy Itself Is Unconstitutional: Gujarat High Court *  Same Officer Can’t Act As Auditor & Adjudicator: Karnataka High Court *  Karnataka High Court Condones 324-Day Delay, Revives Customs Appeal in Jewellery Pilferage Case  *  Madras High Court Quashes GST Assessment Order Passed Ex Parte Despite Prior ITC Reversal; Lifts Bank Attachment *  Tobacco Process Doesn’t Amount to Manufacturing: Madras High Court Quashes Rs. 1.32 Crore Compensation Cess Demand  *  Recovery Notice Unsustainable After Voluntary Reversal of Unutilised Credit: CESTAT  *  GST | ‘System Generated’ SCN Without Officer Details Invalid: Allahabad HC  *  Electronic Records Without Statutory Certification Requirements Can’t Justify Undervaluation Allegations: CESTAT *  Madras High Court Stays GST Order, Finds Prima Facie Merit in Plea Against S. 74 Proceedings Based on S. 73 Intimation  

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