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/2012-13/1523

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