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 LAW/2015-16/2869

Whether penalty can be imposed under Rule 25 if there was no violation of Rules?

Case:- COMMISSIONER OF C. EX., CHENNAI-I VERSUSTAMIL NADU PETRO PRODUCTS LTD.
 
Citation:- 2015 (322) E.L.T. 322 (Mad.)

Brief facts:-Aggrieved by the order of the Tribunal in allowing the appeal filed by the assessee, the Revenue is before this Court by filing the present appeal. This Court, vide order dated 6-11-2007, while admitting the appeal, framed the following substantial question of law for consideration :-
“Whether the Tribunal is correct in holding that the penalty imposed on the assessee under Rule 25 is not sustainable on the ground of violation of Rules 4 and 6 under the facts and circumstances where the manufacturer of excisable goods has removed the goods on payment of only a portion of duty leviable or payable in terms of Rules 4 and 6 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002?”
The facts of the case in brief are that the 1st respondent manufactured and removed Epichloro Hydrin (for short ‘ECH’) and supplied it to M/s. Petro Araldite Pvt. Ltd. (for short ‘PAPL’). The 1st respondent company was manufacturing the said goods as a joint venture company with M/s. Ciba-Geigy Ltd., Switzerland and the Indian collaborator company was M/s. Ciba-Geigy India Pvt. Ltd.
According to the special agreement dated 22-1-1998 entered between the 1st respondent/assessee and PAPL, the raw material, viz., ECH, required by PAPL had to be supplied by the 1st respondent/assessee. There were also agreements like Plant Technology Transfer Agreement, Process Technology Transfer Agreement and Service Agreement entered into between the parties. Based on these agreements, 86% of the production of ECH by the 1st respondent/assessee was supplied to PAPL at a price agreed to between the parties and the remaining 14% was supplied to other buyers in India at a price higher than the price charged to PAPL. Till August, 2001, the assessee was paying duty on ECH cleared to PAPL by treating the transaction value of the goods as its assessable value under Section 4(1)(a) of the Central Excise Act and this was not objected to by the Department. However, the valuation of the goods cleared to PAPL from September, 2001 was questioned by the Department by a series of show cause notices, wherein the Department contended that the assessee and PAPL were related persons in terms of Section 4(3)(b)(iv) of the Central Excise Act and took the view that the value of ECH sold to PAPL is to be determined for the purpose of assessment of duty in terms of Section 4(1)(b) of the Act read with Rules 8, 9 and 10 of the Central Excise Valuation Rules, 2000. In the show cause notices, interest was also demanded under Section 11AB apart from proposing penalties under the Central Excise Rules.
It appears that there was a first round of litigation and the matter came before the Tribunal in a batch of appeals. The appeals were disposed of by order dated 4-8-2005 made in Final Order Nos. 1079 to 1081/2005 reported in 2006 (193)E.L.T.430 (Tri.-Chennai)(Commissioner of Central Excise, Chennai v. Tamil Nadu Petro Products Ltd.). In the said case, it is the finding of the Tribunal that there was a case of mutual interest between the 1st respondent/assessee and PAPL and, therefore, Section 4(1)(b) would govern the valuation. It further held that the goods should be valued in terms of Rule 11 of the Central Excise Valuation Rules and not under Rules 8, 9 and 10, as proposed by the Department. Accordingly, the matter was remanded to the Commissioner for fresh decision.
On remand, after affording opportunity to the 1st respondent/assessee, the Commissioner passed an Order-in-Original Nos. 62 to 66/2005, dated 30-11-2005, whereby the demand of duty against the 1st respondent/assessee under Section 11A of the Central Excise Act was confirmed and the Commissioner also imposed a penalty of Rs. 50,000/- under Rule 25 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 and interest on duty was also demanded under Section 11AB of the Act.
 
Aggrieved against the said order of the Commissioner, the assessee preferred appeal before the Tribunal.

Appellant’s contention:-There is no representation on behalf of the appellant.
 
Respondent’s contention:-There is no representation on behalf of the respondent.
 
Reasoning of judgment:-The Tribunal, on a careful perusal of the factual matrix of the case and relying upon the earlier decisions of the Tribunal in the assessee’s case, came to the conclusion that demand for duty on the basis of valuation done under Section 4(1)(b) is correct and the valuation based on Rule 11 is most appropriate. The Tribunal, in its order, held as under :-
“4. ... In the circumstances, we are of the considered view that the valuation of the goods was correctly done in terms of Rule 11 pursuant to the remand order of the Tribunal. It is also pertinent to note that no alternative reasonable method was suggested by the assessee before the adjudicating authority.”
On the above finding, the Tribunal dismissed the appeal filed by the assessee against the assessment made by the Commissioner and sustained the duty demanded by the impugned order.
The only issue, thereafter, left for the Tribunal to consider was on penalty. For better clarity, the finding of the Tribunal in relation to imposition of penalty and the order thereof, is extracted hereinbelow :-
“6.In relation to the penalty imposed on the assessee, we have found substance in the submissions made by learned counsel. The Commissioner found violations of Rules 4 and 6 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 by the assessee. Rule 4 required correct assessment of excisable goods and Rule 6 required payment of appropriate duty thereon. The Revenue has no case that the assessee did not self-assess the goods or pay duty thereon. In other words, it is not their case that the goods in question were removed otherwise than in terms of Rules 4 and 6. Hence we are unable to sustain the penalty imposed on the assessee under Rule 25 on the ground of violation of Rules 4 and 6. However, the assessee cannot resist demand of interest on duty under Section 11AB of the Act.
7.In the result, the appeal is allowed only to the extent of setting aside the penalty imposed on the appellants by the Commissioner. The impugned order will stand modified accordingly.”
Aggrieved against the said order of the Tribunal in setting aside the penalty imposed on the 1st respondent/assessee, the Revenue is before this Court by filing the present appeal on the above question of law.
When the case was taken up, there is no representation either on behalf of the appellant or the respondent. However, after perusal of the entire records available in the typed set of papers, this Court is inclined to pass the order on the merits of the matter.
From the records, it is evident that the Tribunal held that on self-assessment, the duty was paid and the goods were removed as required under Rules 4 and 6. The only question that needs to be decided is whether there was justification for invocation of Rule 25. The Tribunal came to hold that when there is no violation of Rules 4 and 6, penalty cannot be imposed under Rule 25. On a reading of Rules 4, 6 and 25, it is clear that once it is found that there is no violation of Rules 4 and 6, penalty cannot be imposed under Rule 25 and, therefore, the finding of the Tribunal on that aspect of the matter has to be sustained.
In view of the above provision of law and the order of the Tribunal, they find no reason to differ with the findings as the said decision of the Tribunal is in accordance with the provisions of the said Rules. This Court is of the considered view that a perusal of the grounds of appeal would also reveal that there is no serious error or infirmity in the said finding of the Tribunal. The merit of the order of the Tribunal insofar as the demand for duty and interest is not a matter, which is under challenge before this Court.
In such view of the matter, this Court holds that there is no reason to differ with the findings as recorded by the Tribunal. Therefore, the substantial question of law is accordingly answered in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue. There being no merits, this appeal is dismissed. However, in the circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs.
 
Decision:- Appeal dismissed
 
Comment:-The analogy of the case is that as the goods were cleared on self-assessment under proper invoice on payment of duty on transaction value, there was no reason to impose penalty on the assessee under rule 25.

Prepared by:- Monika Tak

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