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/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