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 LAW/2015-16/2946

Whether delayed payment of duty, but before issuance of SCN, attracts penalty?

Case:-COMMR. OF C. EX., TIRUNELVELI VERSUS SRI RAMJI FIREWORKS INDUSTRIES
 
Citation:- 2015 (317) E.L.T. 443 (Mad.)
 
Brief facts:- The respondent herein had been engaged in the business of fire­works. During the years 1994, 1995 and 1996 the respondent had distributed some gift boxes even without paying duty. Under the said circumstances, show-cause notice, dated 7-9-1998 had been issued wherein the demand of duty, interest coupled with penalty were mentioned. The demand made in show-cause notice had been upheld in Order-in-Original, dated 24-5-1999 and the same had been agitated before the Commissioner of Appeals. The Commissioner of Appeals had dismissed the appeal filed by the respondent and subsequently, the respondent had filed Appeal No. E/443/2003 before the CESTAT.
The CESTAT, after hearing both sides, allowed the appeal in part and set aside the demand made by the Department with regard to penalty and upheld the demand made with regard to duty and interest. Against the disallowed portion, the present Civil Miscellaneous Appeal had been preferred at the instance of the Department as appellant.
 
 
Appellant’s contention:- The learned counsel appearing for the appellant meticulously drew the attention of the Court to the provision of Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944 which deals with penalty in case of short levied or erroneously refunded or non-payment of duty.
 
Respondent’s contention:-Even though the respondent had been served with summons, appearance had not been made. Under the said circumstances, the present Civil Miscellaneous Appeal was disposed off on merits on the basis of the contentions put forth on the side of the appellant.
 
Reasoning of judgement:- At the time of admitting the present Appeal, the following substantial question of law had been settled for consideration : -
“Whether the CESTAT is right in dismissing the appeal and vacating the mandatory penalties imposed when there is a plethora of conflicting decision on the same issue by various higher appellate forums/authorities?”
The present claim of penalty came within the purview of non-payment.
It was seen from the records that the respondent had to pay Central Excise Duty in the years 1994, 1995 and 1996, but they paid duty only on 5-11-1997. Even though, the respondent had paid duty on 5-11-1997 and that too prior to issuance of show cause notice, dated 7-9-1998, the respondent could not absolve its liability from paying penalty under the Section mentioned supra.
The CESTAT without properly considering the said provision had simply found that since before the issuance of show cause notice the respondent had paid Central Excise Duty, it need not pay penalty. Since the said Section deals with short levy or short payment or erroneous refund and non-payment, this Court was of the view that the approach made by the CESTAT with regard to penalty was totally erroneous and therefore, the order passed by the CESTAT was liable to be set aside and the substantial question of law settled in the present Appeal was having substance.
In fine, this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal was allowed without costs and the Final Order No. 725 of 2008 in Appeal No. E/443/2003 passed by the CESTAT with regard to penalty was set aside. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition was closed.
 
Decision:- Appeal allowed.
 
Comment:- The main question to be dealt in this case was that- whether delayed payment of duty before issuance of SCN attracts penalty or not? To answer this question Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944 was referred to. Since the said Section deals with short levy or short payment or erroneous refund and non-payment, Court was of the view that the approach made by the CESTAT with regard to penalty was totally erroneous. No matter whether the duty has been paid before issuance of SCN or not- delay in payment of duty attracts penalty and the same has to be paid.
 
Prepared By- Sharad Bang
 

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