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 Law/2013-14/2027

Interest payable but no penalty if differential duty amount paid suo motto before SCN.

Case:-BOSTIK INDIA PVT. LTD. VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, BANGALORE-I

Citation:- 2013 (294) E.L.T. 118 (Tri.- Bang.)

Brief facts:- This appeal is directed against demand of interest on duty raised under Section 11AB of the Central Excise Act as also against penalty of Rs. 5000/- imposed under Rule 25 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002. The appellant had paid differential duty of Rs. 15,36,812/- in respect of goods cleared from the factory to Kanpur Depot for the period from October,2004 to September,2007 and differential duty of Rs. 20,362/- in respect of goods cleared to Kolkata Depot for the period from September,2006 to September, 2007. Department issued a show cause notice on 30-12-2008 for recovery of interest on the above duty amounts under Section 11AB and for imposition of penalty under Rule 25. These demands were contested. In adjudication of the dispute, the original authority confirmed the demand of interest and imposed a penalty. Its decision was upheld by the Commissioner (Appeals). The present appeal of the assessee is directed against the appellate Commissioner’s order.

Appellant’s contention:- The appellant submitted that the duty amounts were paid at “Places of Removal”  (Depots) within the statutory period and hence, the question of payment of interest thereon did not arise. In similar lines, the penalty also is questioned. As regards the interest on duty, the appellant has claimed support from Chamundi Steel Castings (India) Ltd. V. CESTAT, Chennai [2009 (247) E.L.T.116 (Mad.)].

Respondent’s contention:-On the contrary, the respondent relied on the case of Commissioner of C. Excise, Bangalore v. Presscom Products [2011 (268) E.L.T. 344 (Kar.)] and submitted that the appellant is liable to pay interest under Section 11AB of the Act inasmuch as the payments of duty were made under sub-section (2B) of Section 11A of the Act. .

Reasoning of Judgment:- Having heard both sides and pursuing the records, it cannot be denied that the duty payments were made under Section 11A (2B) of the Central Excise Act. This is because each payment of differential duty at depot was tacit admission of Short payment of duty at factory gate. The duty short- paid was self- determined by the assessee and voluntarily paid before issuance of any show-cause notice to them. They also added that as per the contention of the appellant about the payment of the differential duty under intimation to the proper officer of the Central Excise, then the assessee was working under sub section (2B) of Section 11A of the Act. They placed Explanation 2 & 3 to this sub-section are also relevant to this case:              

“Explanation 2.- For the removal of doubts, it is  hereby declared that the interest under Section 11AB shall be payable in the amount paid by the person under this sub-section and also on the amount of short-payment of duty, if any, as may be determined by the Central Excise Officer, but for this sub-section.”

“Explanation 3. – For the removal of doubts, it is hereby declared that no penalty under any of the provisions of this rules made thereunder shall be imposed in respect of payment of duty under this sub-section and interest thereon.”

After this explanation 2, they added that the assessee has a liability to pay interest on the differential duty under Section 11AB. But Explanation 3 protects them from penalty. Though this explanation was inserted only in 2010, it is a clarificatory provision having retrospective effect. Therefore, the appellant is entitled to claim the benefit of the same. Hence the demand of interest on differential duty is sustained and penalty is set aside.

Decision:- Appeal partly allowed.

Comment:- The crux of the case is that if an assessee pays the differential excise duty suo moto before issuance of SCN, then interest is required to be paid as there was short payment of duty. However, no penalty is imposable on the assessee in view of the Explanation no. 3 to section 11A (2B) of the Central Excise Act, 1944. 

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