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/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