Chartered Accountant
Bookmark and Share
click here to subscribe our newsletter
 
 
Corporate News *   CBIC issues draft rules for Customs valuation *  Top Headlines: Threshold for Benami deals, green bond investors, and more *  Govt aims 1-hour clearance for goods at all ports *  Exporters Allowed To Use RoDTEP, RoSCTL Scrips To Pay Customs Duty, Transfer Them; Rules Amended *  Millions of labourers to be affected by brick producers’ strike over hike in GST, coal rates *  Inauguration of ‘kendriya GST parisar’ *  Transporter can seek Release of Conveyance alone, not Goods under GST Act: Madras HC *  GST: Quoting of DIN Mandatory for Responding to Notice, Govt Modifies Portal *  Firms can soon file claims for GST credits of ?400 cr *  CBIC issues modalities for filing transitional credit under GST. *  Mumbai: Man creates 36 fake GST firms, arrested for input tax credit fraud of Rs 23 cr *  Report to restructure Commerce Ministry under study; idea is to set up trade promotion body: Goyal *  Firms can soon file claims for GST credits of ?400 cr *  Gambling Alert! Govt May Levy Up To 28% GST; UP, Bengal Back Move *  EPFO backs raising retirement age to ease pressure on pension funds *  India Moving Up Power Scale, Set to Become Third Largest Economy By 2030 *  Airfares Get Expensive: What Changes for Flyers From Today? *  IRCTC Latest News: Passengers to Pay More For Cancelling Confirmed Rail Tickets Soon. *  IBC prevails over Customs Act, says Supreme Court. *  As GST enters sixth year, a time for evaluation and reassessment *  There’s GST on daily essentials as Centre needs money to buy MLAs: Arvind Kejriwal *  Now, GST on cancellation of confirmed train tickets, hotel bookings *  GST kitty for top States could rise 20% in FY23, says Crisil *  French customs officials seize another cargo vessel over Russia sanctions *  TradeLens builds on Asia momentum with Pakistan Customs deal *  Hike tax on tobacco, reduce affordability & increase revenue: Civil society organizations to GST council *  Bihar: ?10 crore tax evasion on tobacco products detected in raids *  Centre failed on GST, COVID; would it be anti-national? Rajan on Infosys row *  Service Tax not Chargeable on Income Tax TDS portion paid by recipient: CESTAT grants relief to TVS *  Foreign portfolio investors make net investment of Rs 7575cr in Sep so far
Subject News *  Run-up to Budget: Monetary threshold for GST offences may rise to Rs 25 cr *   GST (Tax) E-invoice Must For Businesses With Over Rs 5 Crore Annual Turnover *   Both Central GST and excise duty can be imposed on tobacco, rules Karnataka high court *   CBIC Issues Clarification On Extended Timelines For GST Compliance *   CBIC Issues Clarification On Extended Timelines For GST Compliance *  Budget 2023- 9.6 crore gas connections *  GST: Tamil Nadu Issues Instructions for Assessment and Adjudication Proceedings *  GST: CBIC Extends Last Date for filing of ITC *  GST collection in September surpasses Rs 1.4 lakh crore for straight seventh time *  Dollar smuggling case: Customs chargesheet names M Sivasankar as key conspirator. *  Hike in GST rates fuels inflation *  Assam: CBI arrests GST commissioner in Guwahati *  GST fraud worth ?824cr by 15 insurance Cos detected *  India proposes 15% customs duties on 22 items imported from UK *  Decriminalising certain offences under GST on cards *  Surge in GST collections more due to higher inflation: India Ratings *  MNRE Notifies BCD and Hike in GST Rates as ‘Change in Law’ Events But With a Condition | Mercom India *   Solar projects awarded before customs duty change allowed cost pass-through *  Rajasthan High Court Dismisses Writ Petitions Challenging Levy Of GST On Royalty *   GST revenue in September likely at Rs 1.45 lakh crore *  Govt working on decriminalising certain offences under GST, lower compounding charge *  Building an institution like GST Council takes time, trashing is easy: Sitharaman *  GST collections in Sept may touch ?1.5 lakh crore *  KTR asks Centre to withdraw GST on handlooms *  After Gameskraft, More Online Gaming Startups To Receive GST Tax Claims *  Madras HC: AAR Application Filed Under VAT Does Not Survive After GST Enactment *  Threshold for criminal offences under GST law may be raised *  Bengaluru: Gaming company faces biggest GST notice of Rs 21,000 crore *  CBIC clarifies Classification of Cranes for GST, Customs Duty *  Customs seize gold hidden in bicycle in Kerala airport  

Comments

Print   |    |  Comment

PJ/Case Laws/2012-13/1370

Whether issuance of second SCN regarding recovery of dues and penalty before adjudicating the first SCN regarding confiscation of goods legal?

Case:-JAY KUMAR LOHANI Versus COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, INDORE
 
Citation:-2012 (28) S.T.R. 350 (M.P.)
 
Issue:- Whether issuance of second SCN regarding recovery of dues and penalty before adjudicating the first SCN regarding confiscation of goods legal?
 
Brief facts:-By this petition under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners have challenged the show cause notice dated 6-1-2012 issued by the first respondent Commissioner invoking provisions of Section 11A of the Central Excise Act, 1944 (for short, the Act). By the impugned notice, the petitioners have been asked to show cause as to why excise duty and penalty as mentioned in the said notice should not be jointly and severally demanded and recovered from them by invoking extended period of 5 years.
According to the petitioners, prior to issuance of the impugned show cause notice the respondents had issued a notice dated 19-8-2011 on the basis of the same allegations which have been levelled in the impugned notice, calling upon the petitioners to show cause as to why the goods seized (branded manufactured tobacco, branded roasted cut supari and unbranded roasted cut supari) be not confiscated and penalty for the same be not imposed. It is stated by the petitioners that a reply to the said earlier show cause notice dated 19-8-2011 was submitted by them on 21-11-2011 and before taking any decision in respect of the said earlier show cause notice, by pre-judging the issue involved in the matter the Commissioner Central Excise has issued the impugned show cause notice dated 6-1-2012 about recovery of duty and penalty.
 
Appellant’s contention:- The learned counsel for theappellant contended that the Commissioner has pre-judged the issue and therefore, submission of reply to the impugned show cause notice would be futile. In the circumstances he submitted that the interference at the stage of show cause notice is called for and the reliefs claimed in the petition deserves to be granted. In support, he placed reliance on the judgment passed by High Court of Madras in the case of Madurai Metal Industries v. Union of India [1991 (52) E.L.T. 495 (Mad.)] and on the judgment passed by the Supreme Court in the case of ORYX Fisheries Private Limited v. Union of India [2011 (266) E.L.T. 422 (S.C.)]. He submitted that either the show cause notice be quashed or an order be passed prohibiting the Commissioner from proceeding further with the impugned show cause notice till the final adjudication of the question involved in earlier show cause notice which is regarding validity of the seizure, the proposed confiscation and the excisability of the goods in question. The petitioners also placed reliance on the judgment of Padmini Products v. Collector of Central Excise [1989 (43) E.L.T. 195 (S.C.)] in which the question as to whether the provision of extended period of 5 years is applicable to the petitioners’ case or not can be very well raised.
 
Respondent’s contention:- The respondent placed reliance on the decision given by theSupreme Court in the case of Standard Chartered Bank & Ors. v. Directorate of Enforcement & Ors. (AIR 2006 SC 13011 = 2006 (197)E.L.T. 18 (S.C.)
 
Reasoning of judgment:-The contention raised by learned counsel for the petitioners that before deciding the objections raised in reply to the earlier show cause notice dated 19-8-2011, the impugned show cause notice dated 6-1-2012 could not have been issued by the first respondent is wholly misconceived. Learned counsel for the petitioners could not point out any legal provision requiring the authorities to first adjudicate the notice issued regarding confiscation and then only they could have issued the impugned show cause notice regarding recovery of dues and penalty. In the circumstances, having regard to the fact that it is not a case of prejudging of the issue and that it is not a case of the show cause notice being without jurisdiction, we find no case for making interference in the show cause notice. It is very clear from the impugned show cause notice dated 6-1-2012 that only a prima facie view has been expressed in regard to the allegations about wilful suppression of the facts of manufacture and clearance of branded manufactured tobacco and roasted cut Supari. In the circumstances the show cause notice which has been challenged in this petition cannot be labelled to have been issued after pre-judging the question involved in the matter. Therefore, the judgments on which reliance has been placed by the learned counsel for the petitioners are of no help to the petitioners as the language employed in those show cause notices is quite different from the impugned show cause notice.
It was further held that the petitioners can put forward their representations against the impugned show cause notice before the Commissioner and it is for the Commissioner to decide the relevant aspects while deciding whether to impose or not to impose the duty and penalty on the petitioners. It is also clear from the scheme of the Act that after the decision being taken by the Commissioner, it is appealable before the authorities established under the Act. Having regards to this, we see no justification for issue of a writ of prohibition restraining the authority from proceeding further with the impugned show cause notice. As observed it is for the petitioners to put forward their defenses as may be available to them before the Commissioner and pursue him in accordance with law.
In the circumstances, having regard to the fact that it is not a case of prejudging of the issue and that it is not a case of the show cause notice being without jurisdiction, we find no case for making interference in the show cause notice. Accordingly, the writ petition is hereby dismissed.
 
Decision:-Petition dismissed
 
Comment:-The analogy drawn from this case is that when it is not ascertainable from the language of the show cause notice that the issuing authority has pre-judged the issue, the issuing authority cannot be prohibited from proceeding further in the case. The appellant had misconceived the facts and applied for writ petition wherein there was no provision in law in respect of appellant’s contentions.

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