Chartered Accountant
Bookmark and Share
click here to subscribe our newsletter
 
 
Corporate News *  Missing seized records must be considered while testing ITC claim; duplicate GST demands ordered corrected: Delhi High Court. *  GST appeal can’t be rejected without addressing taxpayer’s grounds: Allahabad High Court. *  Surplus IGST credit can offset CGST, SGST shortfall: GSTAT. *  GST refund can’t be denied when cancelled airfares are returned with tax: GSTAT. *  3 Hearing notices issued within 2 minutes: Gujarat High Court flags portal flaw, seeks report. *  GSTR-9, GSTR-9C filing for FY 2025-26 enabled; pending GSTR-1 and GSTR-3B must be filed first. *  Dupattas are exempt fabrics, can’t be taxed as fibres at 4%: Madras High Court. *  Full transitional credit allowed on capital goods received after GST rollout: GSTAT denies Rs. 6.99 lakh export duty credit. *  GST return mismatch alone can’t justify fraud proceedings: GSTAT orders fresh adjudication under section 73. *  Supplier found non-existent later can’t alone justify input tax credit denial: GSTAT. *  GST interest stops once tax reaches government account, can’t run until return filing: GSTAT. *  Cancelled flat booking- GST refund can’t be denied without excluding COVID period from limitation: GSTAT. *  India notifies rules of origin for India–New Zealand FTA. *  Incomplete E-bike kits classifiable as complete vehicles, but not eligible for CKD duty concession: CESTAT. *  Same GST rate on main input and output can’t by itself bar inverted duty refund: GSTAT. *  Unjust enrichment doesn’t apply to customs refunds from assessments finalised before July 13, 2006: Gujarat High Court. *  CENVAT credit can’t be denied solely because plant And machinery are embedded in earth: Karnataka High Court. *  DFIA exports ineligible for RoDTEP benefits; customs directs repayment with applicable interest. *  Second E-Way bill alone doesn’t prove another supply: GSTAT. *  Bail denied in Rs. 1.19 crore fake GST refund case over risk of accused absconding again: Punjab and Haryana High Court. *  GST registration can be restored after revocation deadline if outstanding dues are paid: Gauhati High Court. *  Multiple GST proceedings over same suppliers: Calcutta High Court directs dept. to share findings for adjudication. *  E-Governance portal services not OIDAR, fixed deposit interest not taxable: CESTAT. *  Rs. 500 Stamp duty required on authority letters for CAs, CMA and GST practitioners in Pune GST division.  *  Rs. 1.10 crore GST refund must be paid in cash after business closure: Allahabad High Court. *  Godown rent attracts 18% GST even when used exclusively for exempt agricultural warehousing: AAR. *  GST portal launches "Multi-State Registration" facility: one master TRN for registration applications across multiple States/UTs. *  RoDTEP scheme extended till 31st December, 2026.  *  Mere disagreement with order can’t override Rs. 20 lakh appeal limit: GSTAT. *  Customs interest can’t be backdated before confiscation liability is determined; nearly 8 year period excluded: Delhi High Court.
Subject News *  GST summons: anticipatory bail maintainable without arrest order, but relief denied in evasion case: Allahabad High Court. *  GST Appeal can’t be decided without hearing taxpayer’s objections to fresh evidence: Allahabad High Court. *  GST ITC can’t be reversed merely because supplier grants discount without reducing tax liability: GSTAT. *  Mere quoting of GST provision is not a valid charge: GSTAT quashes ITC denial. *  Personal hearing mandatory before adverse GST order, even without taxpayer’s request: Rajasthan High Court. *  Parallel bail pleas without full disclosure amount to abuse of process Rs. 43.08 crore GST case sent for fresh hearing: Supreme Court. *  GST refund based on unchallenged advance ruling can’t be recovered using later circular: GSTAT. *  Payment of GST alone doesn’t end interest and penalty liability when tax and interest remain unpaid beyond 30 days of notice: GSTAT. *  GST demand over builders’ 80% procurement rule requires reasoned adjudication: GSTAT. *  Eligible ITC doesn’t automatically entitle taxpayers to compensation cess refund on domestic sales: GSTAT. *  GST confiscation order passed before reply deadline invalid: GSTAT. *  GST interest can’t be retained after tax refund on delayed export receipts: Punjab & Haryana High Court. *  GST appeal can’t be dismissed over pre-deposit shortfall without opportunity To respond: Bombay High Court. *  DGGI SCN can’t be challenged before reply and adjudication:Chhattisgarh High Court. *  GST input tax credit can’t be denied solely due to supplier’s retrospective registration cancellation: GSTAT. *  GST notice must explain fraud allegations; merely repeating section 74 Is not enough:  Himachal Pradesh High Court. *  Audit detection alone can’t justify GST fraud penalty; specific suppression must be proved: GSTAT. *  GST order uploaded only under ‘Additional Notices’ tab without separate intimation set aside: Calcutta High Court. *  Service Tax appeal can’t be rejected for missing pre-deposit proof when payment is already recorded: CESTAT. *  SGST dept. can’t hear appeal against CGST order: Calcutta High Court. *  Mere dispatch of tax order can’t prove service or make appeal time-barred: CESTAT. *  Dealer incentives can’t be taxed merely on ledger entries: CESTAT. *  DGFT orders quashed for failure to supply DRI letter relied upon in SCN: Bombay High Court. *  GST penalty u/s 122(1A) can’t apply to Pre-2021 transactions; unregistered beneficiaries also covered: Delhi High Court. *  Expired E-way bill caused by wrong PIN code can’t justify GST penalty without intent to evade tax: GSTAT. *  Used railway rails can’t be taxed as track material without proof they are fit for reuse: CESTAT. *  Earlier DGGI notice doesn’t bar separate GST demand on different issue: Delhi High Court. *  ITC dispute involves no question of law: GSTAT directs appeal to Vice-President. *  Earlier DGGI notice doesn’t bar separate GST demand On different issue: Delhi High Court. *  No E-way bill required for interstate goods movement in november 2017: GSTAT quashes detention and penalty.  

Comments

Print   |    |  Comment

PJ/Case Laws/2011-12/1519

Reliance on decision which is set aside by Tribunal

Case: COMMISSIONER OF C. EX., ALLAHABAD Versus HINDALCO INDUSTRIES LTD
 
Citation: 2011 (272) E.L.T. 278 (Tri. - Del.)
 
Issue:- When earlier decision relied upon by Adjudicating Authority set aside, then it will not be helpful in subsequent cases.
 
Composite penalty u/s 11AC and Rule 15(1) and (2) cannot be imposed where there is no specific provision in SCN.
 
Brief Facts:- During the course of investigation the Cenvat credit goods were found short on physical verification. Accordingly, a show cause notice was issued for demand of duty on short found inputs and proposal for penalty under Section 11AC read with Rule 13, 15 of Central Excise [(sic) Cenvat Credit) Rules, 2002/2004. Thereafter the original adjudicating au­thority confirmed the demand along with interest and penalty under Section 11AC. On appeal, by both the sides, the Commissioner (Appeals) rejected the appeal of the assessee but he has further imposed penalty under Rule 15(2) of Cenvat Credit Rules apart from the penalty under Section 11AC of Central Excise Act, 1944.
 
Aggrieved from the said order, both sides are again in appeal before this Tribunal, Revenue is on the ground that that further penalty under Rule 15(1) of Central Excise [Cenvat Credit] Rules, 2004 is to be imposed and the assessee is against the demand, interest and penalties.
 
Appellant’s Contention:- Revenue submitted that the penalties under Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944 can be imposed separately and penalties under various provisions of Rule 15 of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 can be imposed separately under various clauses of the contraventions made by the as­sessee in this case. With regards to the merits of the case, he submitted that the facts of this case are not identical to the earlier case and hence, the decision can­not be relied upon.
 
Respondent’s Contention:- Assessee submits that the adju­dicating authority has confirmed the demand relying on the decision in the as­sessee own case. The said order of the adjudicating authority has been set aside by the Tribunal. Hence, the im­pugned orders are liable to be set aside.
 
Assessee also submitted that as there is pro­posal of penalty under Section 11AC of Central Excise Rules, 1944 read with Rule 13, 15 of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2002/2004 in the show cause notice, no separate penalties under various provisions is imposable on the assessee.
 
Reasoning of Judgment:- It is fairly agreed by both the sides that adjudicating authority had relied upon the earlier decision of the Commissioner (Appeals) in the appellant’s own case which have been set aside by the Tribunal. It is not denied by the revenue that he has not relied upon the said decision.
 
The contention of the revenue that the earlier decision of the Commissioner (Appeals) cannot be relied upon in the facts of this case also supports the contention of the assessee. Hence, when this Tribunal has set aside the decision on which the adjudicating authority has relied upon, that decision will be of no help in this case also hence, the same is to be set aside.
 
But in the interest of justice, the matter is to be adjudicated afresh by the adjudicating au­thority as he had relied upon certain decision which has been set aside by this Tribunal. In that case, the matter needs fresh examination and hence the matter is sent back to the original authority to decide the matter afresh keeping all the is­sues open after giving reasonable opportunity of hearing to the appellants to de­fend their case.
 
There is no specific provision under which the Department wants to impose penalty under Rule 15. There is no proposal for separate penalties in the show cause notice, no specific allegation for specific penalty has been made. Hence the penalties under Rule 15 are not imposable on the assessee and there is proposal for imposing penalty under Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act read with Rule 15 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2002/2004.
 
Decision:- Revenue’s appeal rejected by way of remanded. 

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