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 Law /2016-17/3263

Whether or not the respondent who is public limited company is to be treated relative of buyer who has paid central excise for sale of final products.

Case:- COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, RAIPUR  Versus  AKASH ISPAT LTD.

Citation:- 2016 (337) E.L.T. 295 (Tri. - Del.)       

Brief Facts:- The brief facts of the case are that the respondent are engaged in the manufacture of M.S. Ingots liable to Central Excise duty. The proceedings were initiated against them for short payment of Central Excise duty on the goods cleared to related buyers. After due process, the Original Authority vide order dated 13-11-2006 held that the respondents are liable to pay the differential duty of Rs. 16,78,974/- with interest. He imposed penalty of Rs. 1,50,000/- on the appellant. On appeal, the Commissioner (Appeals) vides order dated 22-3-2007 set aside the order and allowed the appeal.

Appellant’s Contention:-Ld. AR reiterated the grounds in the appeal. He submitted that the Directors, Partners, Proprietors of the respondent and the buyers’ units were common/relatives in terms of Schedule-IA of Section 6 of the Companies Act, having relationship and running, controlling and managing the inter-connected undertakings. The profit accruing from the sale through related persons goes to the same family or relative, as deemed in Section 4(3)(b) read with Section 2(41) of the Companies Act, 1956 and thereby mutuality of interest gets established and Section 4(1)(b) of Central Excise Act, 1944 is invokable.

Respondent Contention:-None appeared for respondent.

Reasoning of Judgment:-On perusal of records it is found that issue arising whether or not the respondent paid correct Central Excise duty for sale of final products to five buyers, who are said to be related to them or the declared sale value is vitiated. M/s. Cosmos Ispat Pvt. Ltd is a Private Limited Company having three Directors. The Original Authority held that the respondent and the four buyers, who are proprietary concerns, do not fall under the category of inter-connected undertakings under Section 2(g) of MRTP Act. The Original Authority found that the respondent and M/s. Cosmos Ispat Pvt. Ltd. are “inter-connected undertakings” in terms of sub-clause (iv) of Explanation-I in Section 2(g) of MRTP Act. The Original Authority further held that the respondent and all the buyers are “related in terms of sub-clause (ii) of Clause (b) of sub-section (3) of Section 4 of the Central Excise Act. He arrived at this conclusion treating the companies also as natural person and being “relative” of one another. The impugned order rejected the findings of the Original Authority regarding the respondent and the buyers being “relative”. It was further held that since all goods produced were not sold to these buyers, the scheme as contemplated under Rule 9 of Valuation Rules will not be applicable regarding the respondent and M/s. Cosmos Ispat Pvt. Ltd. being “inter-connected undertakings”. The lower Appellate Authority held that the transaction value under Section 4(1)(a) of the Act is applicable as there is no evidence that the price charged is not the sole consideration for sale or any additional consideration was flowing directly or indirectly from the buyers to the respondent.   
    
Decision:-The appeal is accordingly dismissed.

Comment:-The crux of the case is that the provisions of MRTP Act talks about inter-connectivity between two body corporate. it is an admitted fact that four out of the five buyers are proprietary concerns. The respondent is a Public Limited Company. The “relative” as defined under Section 2(41) should be in such way as specified in Section 6 of the Companies Act. In terms of Section 6, a person shall be deemed to be a relative of other, if, and only if, they are members of a HUF or husband and wife or one is related to other, in a manner like father, mother, daughter, brother, etc. A corporate entity, the respondent being a Public Limited Company, cannot be called a “relative”.

Prepared by:- Bharat

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