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/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