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/2012-13/1530

Statement of Authorised Representative cannot prove clandestine removal when there is no variance in raw material stock.

Case:-RAJ RATAN INDUSTRIES LTD. Versus COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, KANPURE

Citation:- 2013(289) E.T.L. 483(Tri.- Del.)

Brief Facts:-As per facts on record M/s. Raj Ratan Industries Ltd. is engaged in the manufacture of M.S. Ingots. Their factory was visited by the Central Excise officers on 26-8-2008, who conducted various checks and verification. As a result shortage of M.S. Ingots to the extent of 40.865 M.T., involving duty of Rs. 1,50,265/- was detected. However no discrepancy was found in the stock of raw-materials.
Shri Vijay Kumar Agarwal authorized signatory of the said appellant in his on the spot statement admitted shortages and agreed to pay duty which was also deposited by him, that the short found final product might have been disposed by their factory employees without issuing invoices and without pay­ment of duty.
On the above basis, proceeding were initiated against the appellant by way of show cause notice dated 1-6-2009. The said show cause notice culmi­nated into an order passed by the original adjudicating authority confirming the demand and interest and imposition of identical amount of penalty under Sec­tion 11AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944. Further, penalty of Rs. 50,000/- was imposed upon Shri Vijay Kumar Agarwal in terms of Rule 26 of Central Excise Rules. Appeal against the above order did not succeed before Commissioner (Appeals). Hence, the present appeal.

Reasoning of Judgment:-We have considered the submission from both parties and perused the record and on going through the impugned order it is found that the duty demand stands confirmed in respect of shortages detected at the time of visit of the officers read with the statement of Shri Vijay Kumar Agarwal. The appellants have strongly contended, the manner of weightment of the final product. It is seen that the Revenue has not produced any inventory on record to show that the weight­ment was actually done and the shortages were not on the basis of average weight system but real and based upon actual weightments. Similarly reliance of the Revenue on the statement of the authorized representative cannot ipso-facto lead to the inevitable conclusion of clandestine removal of final product espe­cially when there is no variation in the stock of the raw-material. There is no other evidence on record to reflect upon the above fact. Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax v. Dhingra Metal Works, 2010- TIOL-693-HC-DEL-IT has held that though an admission is extremely important piece of evidence, it cannot be said to be conclusive.
 It is well settled law that allegations of clandestine removal are re­quired to be established by the Revenue by production of the concrete and tangi­ble evidence. In the present case apart from the statement of the authorized rep­resentative, there is no evidence to reflect upon the said activities. Reference at this point can be made to the Tribunal decision in the case of Vikram Cement (Final order no.)A/1419-1421/ 2012-S.M [BR} dated 4-10-2012. and Punjab & Haryana High Court judgment in the case of CCE v. Lexmi Engineering Works, 2010 (254) E.L.T. 205 (P&H). As the Revenue has failed to bring on record any evidence showing illegal manufacture and removal of their final product, Tribunal find no justification in upholding the confirmation of demand of duty or imposition if penalty on both the appellants.
Accordingly, the impugned orders are set aside and both the appeals are allowed with consequential relief to the appellant.
 
Decision:-The appeal is allowed.

Comment:-The substance of this case is that allegation of illicit manufacture and clandestine removal are to be backed by corroborative evidences and the statement of authorised representative cannot be the sole basis of confirming such demand along with interest and penalty specially when there is no variance in raw material stock.
 

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