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/2012-13/1523

Whether confiscation penalty can be imposed on person other than those specified in Rule 25?

Case:- Commissioner Of Central Excise Delhi-I Vs Balaji Trading Co & Ors
 
Citation:-2013-TIOL-284-HC-DEL-CX
 
Brief facts:- This is an appeal under Section 35G of the Central Excise Act, 1944. It has been filed by the revenue, being aggrieved by the final order No. A/655- 657/2012-EX (BR) dated 05.06.2012 passed by the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal ( CESTAT ) in Central Excise Appeal Nos. 260/2012, 292 /2012 and 342/2012, whereby the said appeals filed by the respondent were allowed. The Commissioner (Adjudication) had passed an order on 31.10.2011, whereby he had imposed penalties of Rs . 10 lacs on Balaji Trading Company, Rs . 3 lacs on Pooja Agencies and Rs . 10,000/- on Balaji Flexipacks, respectively, under Rule 25 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002. The allegation against the respondents was that they were storing and selling zarda which had the brand name of “Ratna” and which had been manufactured by Prabhat Zarda Factory. It is alleged that the said Prabhat Zarda had clandestinely cleared the said quantities of ‘Ratna' Zarda and that the same were being stored with the respondents for further sales. It is also contended that the said respondents were related concerns of Prabhat Zarda Factory. The Commissioner passed an order-in-original dated 31.10.2011, whereby the said penalties were imposed on the respondents under Rule 25 of the said Rules. Rule 25 of the said Rules reads as under:-
 
“RULE 25. Confiscation and Penalty- (1) Subject to the provisions of section 11AC of the Act, if any producer, manufacturer, registered person of a warehouse or a registered dealer, -
(a)   removes any excisable goods in contravention of any of the provisions of these rules or the notifications issued under these rules; or
(b)   does not account for any excisable goods produced or manufactured or stored by him; or
(c)   engages in the manufacture, production or storage of any excisable goods without having applied for the registration certificate required under section 6 of the Act; or
(d)   contravenes any of the provisions of these rules or the notifications issued under these rules with intent to evade payment of duty,
 
then , all such goods shall be liable to confiscation and the producer or manufacturer or registered person of the warehouse or a registered dealer, as the case may be, shall be liable to a penalty not exceeding the duty on the excisable goods in respect of which any contravention of the nature referred to in clause (a) or clause (b) or clause (c) or clause (d) has been committed, or [rupees two thousand], whichever is greater.
 
Appellant’s Contention:The learned counsel for the appellant contended that Rule 25(1)(c) would be applicable.
 
Reasoning of Judgement:- The Tribunal, however, allowed the appeals of the respondents by holding that Rule 25 does not apply to the respondents as it was not the case of the prosecution that the respondents were producers, manufacturers, registered persons of a warehouse or registered dealers. It is pertinent to note that Rule 25(1) specifically mentions four categories of persons :-
 
(a) producer;
(b) manufacturer;
(c) registered person of a warehouse; or
(d) a registered dealer.
 
These four categories of persons are also mentioned at the end of Rule 25, where the liability of penalty has been spelt out. It is, therefore, clear that the penalty can be imposed on such persons only. The respondents are neither producers nor manufacturers of the said Prabhat Zarda nor are they the registered persons of a warehouse in which the said zarda had been stored. The respondents are also not the registered dealers. That being the case, no penalty can be imposed on the said respondents. The Tribunal has come to the correct conclusion, particularly, as it was not the case of the prosecution that the respondents fell within any one of the four categories of persons mentioned above.
 
Decision:-The appeal was dismissed.

Comment:-The substance of this case is that penalty under Rule 25 can be imposed only on a producer, manufacturer, registered person of a warehouse, or a registered dealer.
 

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