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 Law/2014-15/2358

No fee is payable in respect of appeals relating to rebate.

Case:-COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE Vs M/s GLYPH INTERNATIONAL LTD.
 
Citation:-2014-TIOL-525-HC-ALL-ST
 
Brief facts:-The appeal by the revenue arises from a decision of the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal dated 2 July 2013.
 
 The appeal seeks to raise the following questions of law.
 
"(i) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the CESTAT, New Delhi has committed an error of Law in holding that no fees is payable in filing appeals before the CESTAT relating to refund/rebate of Service Tax, Customs and  Central Excise matters?
 
(ii) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the CESTAT, New Delhi has gravely erred in interpreting the provisions of Section 86 (6) of the Finance Act, 1994 and holding that no fees is payable in filing appeal before the CESTAT relating to refund/rebate of Service Tax, Customs and Central Excise matter depriving the revenue to collect fee from the parties from all over India with regard to filing of appeals in the matters of refund/rebate of Service Tax, Customs and Central Excise matters?”
 
Reasoning of judgment:-:-Section 86 (6) of the Finance Act, 1994 provides as follows:
 
"An appeal to the appellate Tribunal shall be in the prescribed form and shall be verified in the prescribed manner and shall, irrespective of the date of demand of service tax and interest or of levy of penalty in relation to which the appeal is made, be accompanied by a fee of,-
 
a. Where the amount of service tax and interest demand and penalty levied by any Central Excise Office in the case to which the appeal relates is five lakh rupees or less, one thousand rupees;
 
b. Where the amount of service tax and interest demanded and penalty levied by any Central Excise Officer in the case to which the appeal relates is more than lakh rupees but not exceeding fifty lakh rupees, five thousands, rupees;
 
c. Where the amount of service tax and interest demanded and penalty levied by any Central Excise Officer in the case of which the appeals relates is more than fifty lakh rupees, ten thousand rupees:
 
Provided that no fees shall be payable in the case of an appeal referred to in subsection(2) or sub-section (2A) or a memorandum of cross-objections referred to in sub-section (4)."
 
Section 86 (6) refers to the fee which has to accompany an appeal. The fees are respectively 1000 rupees, 5000 rupees and 10,000 rupees based on "the amount of service tax and interest demanded and penalty" levied. Where the service tax and interest demand and penalty levied is rupees five lakhs or less, the fee is one thousand rupees; where the service tax and interest demanded and penalty levied is more than five lakhs but does not exceed rupees fifty lakhs, the fee is five thousand rupees; and where the amount of service tax and interest demanded and penalty levied is more than fifty lakhs, the fee is ten thousand rupees.
 
Section 86 (6) does not speak of a refund/rebate. As the Tribunal has correctly held, there isno residuary provision in Section 86 (6).
 
On the contrary, prior to 1 November 2004 when Section 86 (6) came into force, the earlier provision was as follows:
 
"(6) An appeal to the appellate Tribunal shall be in the prescribed form and shall be verified in the prescribed manner and shall, except in the case of an appeal referred to in subsection (2) of sub section (4), be accompanied by a fee of two hundred rupees."
 
The earlier provision, therefore, was for the payment of a fee of rupees two hundred in case of every appeal (save for the excepted category). The present provision does not contain an analogous arrangement.
In the circumstances, there is no error in the interpretation which has been placed by the Tribunal upon the provisions of 86 (6) of the Finance Act, 1994.
In view of the above, this appeal will not raise any substantial question of law. The appeal is, accordingly, dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.
 
 
Decision:- Appeal dismissed.
 
Comment:- The essence of this case is that no fees is payable for filing appeal in the Tribunal when the matter pertains to that of rebate or refund claim.  
 
Prepared by: Monika Tak

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