Chartered Accountant
Bookmark and Share
click here to subscribe our newsletter
 
 
Corporate News *  GST registration cancellation without reasons amounts to ‘Economic Death’ of business: Supreme Court. *  No GST refund if appeal before GSTAT is filed late: Gujarat High Court. *  Mere upload of GST notice on portal not valid service, appeal limitation won’t start: Punjab & Haryana High Court. *  Taxpayer can’t be penalised for missing notices hidden under ‘Additional Notices/Orders’: Calcutta High Court allows fresh adjudication. *  State tax officer can’t issue GST SCN beyond CBIC-assigned jurisdiction: Bombay High Court stays recovery proceedings. *  Earlier 7.5% Pre-Deposit must count towards mandatory 10% for Appeal: Uttarakhand high court quashes CESTAT Order. *  Third Parties can’t challenge GST Advance Rulings merely due to financial impact: Karnataka HC *  GST SCN generated using AI tool quashed: Punjab & Haryana High Court *  Bank Attachment Quashed as Madras HC Quashes GST Order Issued Against Deceased Person *  ITC Blocking Order for Failure to Record ‘Reason to Believe’ U/R 86A Quashed: Allahabad High Court *  Govt Extends GSTAT Appeal Filing Deadline From 30 June to July 31, 2026 *  GST Demand on RWA Stayed: Allahabad High Court Questions Taxability of Electricity Distribution to Flat Owners *  CBIC Clarifies Jurisdiction After GST Registration Transfer: Earlier Proceedings Remain Valid, New Officer to Continue Action *  GST authorities’ certification not mandatory for reimbursement, but tax payment must be proven: Karnataka HC *  Contractor can’t seek gst reimbursement through writ when contract has arbitration clause: Karnataka HC *  Unsigned Order Is No Order in Law: AP HC Quashes GST Assessment Order for Want of Officer’s Signature *  Customs Can’t Levy Rs. 1.36 Crore Cost Recovery Charges Without Proof of Full-Day Officer Deployment: CESTAT  *  12% IGST Payable On Imported Dialysis Machine Parts: CESTAT *  Bombay High Court Admits Challenge to GST Limitation Extension Notifications; Grants Protection Against Coercive Recovery *  Criminal Case Can’t Run Parallel to GST Proceedings on Same Facts: Allahabad High Court *  Allahabad High Court Stays GST Detention Order; Directs Release of Vehicle and Goods on Deposit of Rs. 1.44 Lakh *  Service Tax Can’t Be Levied on Loss-Making Contracts: Gujarat High Court *  GSTN Mandates Ship-to GSTIN in e-Invoice and e-Way Bill APIs; Introduces Voluntary e-Way Bill Closure Facility from August 1, 2026 *  GST Appeal Can’t Be Rejected as Time-Barred When Taxpayer Was Pursuing Rectification Remedy: Telangana High Court *  Absence of E-Way Bill and Transport Documents Justifies Customs Seizure U/s 110: Gauhati HC *  Madras High Court Upholds GST Late Fee and Penalty for Non-Filing of Annual Return, Dismisses Challenge  *  GST Records, Purchase Documents Sufficient to Discharge Burden Under Customs Act: CESTAT Orders Release of 3.65 Kg Gold  *  No Sugar Cess Payable on Sugar Exported Out of India: CESTAT *  Road Construction Services Exempt and SCN Time-Barred: CESTAT Quashes Service Tax Demand Based Solely on Form 26AS  *  ITC Freeze Upheld After GST Dept Find Suppliers Were Allegedly Fake Bill-Trading Entities: Madras HC 
Subject News *  Input service benefits can’t be denied: CESTAT allows export refund despite MMTC acting as Canalising agency. *  No service tax demand without proof of service of SCN: CESTAT. *  Service tax demand quashed as dept. fails to prove service of SCN: CESTAT *  GST : Mere allegation of inadequate consideration of reply not enough to invoke writ jurisdiction: Delhi High Court *  Onerous conditions imposed for provisional release of seized imported goods shouldn’t amount to virtual denial of relief: CESTAT. *  GST SCN without alleging fraud cannot invoke sec. 74: Karnataka High Court quashes adjudication order. *  Extended Limitation Can’t Be Invoked Merely on Form 26AS Data: CESTAT *  Revenue-Sharing with Restaurants Not Taxable as Business Support Service: CESTAT *  R. 6(3) Option Can’t Be Forced on Taxpayer; CESTAT Quashes Rs. 12.36 Crore CENVAT Credit Demand *  Excise Duty | Power Consumption Alone Can’t Prove Clandestine Manufacture: Karnataka High Court *  Madras High Court Examines DGGI’s Authority to Issue GST Penalty Orders Under Section 122, Adds DGGI as Party *  Proceedings under omitted r. 96(10) can’t survive without saving clause: andhra pradesh high court quashes gst refund recovery *  Excise duty power consumption alone can’t prove clandestine manufacture: karnataka high court *  Madras high court rules GST show cause notices must disclose grounds for invoking extended limitation *  Court Can’t Direct Extension GST Return Deadlines or Waive Interest and Penalties: Karnataka High Court *  GST Notifications Can’t Go Beyond GST Council Recommendations: Madras High Court Quashes SCN on Branded Pulses *  Appeal Can’t Be Dismissed for Delay When Dept’s Own Order Mis-states Limitation Period: CESTAT *  No Evidence of KYC or Due Diligence Breach By Customs Broker: CESTAT Quashes Licence Revocation in Export Overvaluation Case *  Glucometers Are Chemical Analysis Instruments Classifiable Under Tariff Heading 9027: CESTAT *  Validity of Post-GST Service Tax Proceedings Upheld: Gujarat High Court Dismisses Challenge to S. 73 SCN *  Rectified GST Refund Applications Can’t Be Rejected as Time-Barred If Original Refund Claim Was Filed Within Limitation: Gujarat HC *  Service Tax Refund Can’t Be Denied as Time-Barred When Levy Itself Is Unconstitutional: Gujarat High Court *  Same Officer Can’t Act As Auditor & Adjudicator: Karnataka High Court *  Karnataka High Court Condones 324-Day Delay, Revives Customs Appeal in Jewellery Pilferage Case  *  Madras High Court Quashes GST Assessment Order Passed Ex Parte Despite Prior ITC Reversal; Lifts Bank Attachment *  Tobacco Process Doesn’t Amount to Manufacturing: Madras High Court Quashes Rs. 1.32 Crore Compensation Cess Demand  *  Recovery Notice Unsustainable After Voluntary Reversal of Unutilised Credit: CESTAT  *  GST | ‘System Generated’ SCN Without Officer Details Invalid: Allahabad HC  *  Electronic Records Without Statutory Certification Requirements Can’t Justify Undervaluation Allegations: CESTAT *  Madras High Court Stays GST Order, Finds Prima Facie Merit in Plea Against S. 74 Proceedings Based on S. 73 Intimation  

Comments

Print   |    |  Comment

PJ/CASE LAW/2016-17/3174

Whether SCN can be issued for demand of interest and penalty under section 11A (1) and (2) of CEA, 1944.

Case:-  M/s SMITA STEELS ROLLING MILLS PVT LTD Vs COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, THANE

Citation:-2016-TIOL-932-CESTAT-MUM

Issue:- Whether SCN can be issued for demand of interest and penalty under section 11A (1) and (2) of CEA, 1944.

Brief Facts:-  These appeals are directed against Order-in-Appeal No. VSK/74 TO 75/Th-I/2010 dated 26/3/2010 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) Central Excise, Mumbai Zone-I, wherein Ld Commissioner (Appeals) upholding the demand of interest and penalty, rejected the appeal of the appellant. The issue involved in the present case is that the show cause notice was issued only for the demand of interest and imposition of penalty under Section 11AB and 11AC respectively for the alleged offence that the appellant had availed Cenvat credit to the extent of 100% in respect of Capital goods instead of 50%.

Appellant’s Contention:- The show cause notice were issued only for demand of interest and penalty under Section 11AB and Section 11AC respectively. However, no show cause notice was issued for demand of any wrong availment of Cenvat credit. Therefore there is neither the show cause notice under Section 11A(1) and nor any Adjudication Order under Section 11A(2) was issued and consequently there is no determination of duty under Section 11A(2). He submits that under provisions of Section 11AB and Section 11AC the penalty and interest can be demanded only if the duty was determined under Section 11A(2). He placed reliance on following judgments:
(a) Commissioner of C.Ex. Chandigarh Vs. Groz Beckert Asia Pvt Ltd [2009 (240) ELT 222 (Tri. Del.)]
(b) Madura Coats Pvt Ltd Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Tirunelveli [2006 (193) ELT 470 (Tri. Bang.)] = 2005-TIOL-1425-CESTAT-BANG 
(c) Eicher Demm Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex. Chandigarh [2002 (140) ELT 227 (Tri. Del.)]
(d) Commissioner of C. Ex. Chandigarh Vs. Eicher Demm [2010 (252) ELT 519 (H.P.)]
(e) Dhillon Kool Drinks Beverages Vs. Commissioner of C.Ex. New Delhi [2000 (120) ELT 81 (Tri.)]
(f) Commr. of C. Ex. Bangalore-III Vs. Bharat Heavy Electricals Ltd [2010 (257) ELT 369 (Kar.)] - 2010-TIOL-437-HC-KAR-CX

Respondent’s Contention:-Shri. H.M. Dixit, Ld. Asstt. Commissioner (A.R.) appearing on behalf of the Revenue reiterates the findings of the impugned order.

Reasoning Of Judgment:- The Show cause notice was issued only for demand of interest under Section 11AB and imposition penalty under Section 11AC for the reason that the appellant had availed 100% Cenvat credit on receipt of the Capital goods instead of 50% as provided under Rule 4(2)(a) and (b). It was found that statutory provision for interest and penalty are provided under Section 11AB and 11AC which reads as under:

Section 11 AB. Interest delayed payment of duty:-
Where any duty of excise has not been levied or paid or has been short-levied or short-paid or erroneously refunded, the person who is liable to pay the duty as determined under sub-section (2), or has paid the duty under sub-section (2B), of section 11A, shall, in addition to the duty, be liable to pay interest at such rate not below [ten per cent.] and not exceeding thirty six per cent per annum as is for the time being fixed by the Central Government, by notification in the Official Gazette, from the first date of the month succeeding the month in which the duty ought to have been paid under this Act, or from the date of such erroneous refund, as the case may be, but for the provisions contained in sub-section (2), or sub-section (2B), of section 11A till the date of payment of such duty:

Section 11AC. Penalty for short-levy or non-levy of duty in certain cases
The amount of penalty for non-levy or short-levy or non-payment or short payment or erroneous refund shall be as follows:-
(a) where any duty of excise has not been levied or paid or has been short-levied or short-paid or erroneously refunded, by reason of fraud or collusion or any willful mis-statement or suppression of facts, or contravention of any of the provisions of this Act or of the rules made there under with intent to evade payment of duty, the person who is liable to pay duty as determined under sub-section (10) of section 11A shall also be liable to pay a penalty equal to the duty so determined;

Section 11A. Recovery of duties not levied or not paid or short-levied or short-paid or erroneously refunded. –
Where any duty of excise has not been levied or paid or has been short-levied or short-paid or erroneously refunded, for any reason, other than the reason of fraud or collusion or any willful mis-statement or suppression of facts or contravention of any of the provisions of this Act or of the rules made thereunder with intent to evade payment of duty,-
The Central Excise Officer shall, within one year from the relevant date, serve notice on the person chargeable with the duty which has not been so levied or paid or which has been so short-levied or short-paid or to whom the refund has erroneously been made, requiring him to show cause why he should not pay the amount specified in the notice:
The person chargeable with duty may, before service of notice under clause (a), pay on the basis of-
(i) his own ascertainment of such duty; or
(ii) the duty ascertained by the Central Excise Officer, the amount of duty along with interest payable thereon under section 11AA .
The person who has paid the duty under clause (b) of sub-section (1), shall inform the Central Excise Officer of such payment in writing, who, on receipt of such information, shall not serve any notice under clause (a) of that sub-section in respect of the duty so paid or any penalty livable under the provisions of this Act or the rules made there under.

Decision:-Appeal allowed.

Comment:- The gist of the case is that under provisions of Section 11AB and Section 11AC the penalty and interest can be demanded only if the duty was determined under Section 11A(2) & Show cause notice was issued  under section 11A(1). If these two conditions are not satisfied, neither the interest is payable nor the penalty is imposable. In the instant case, the show cause notice was issued only for demand of interest under Section 11AB and imposition penalty under Section 11AC for the reason that the appellant had availed 100% Cenvat credit on receipt of the Capital goods instead of 50% as provided under Rule 4(2)(a) and (b). Since there was no duty determined in terms of section 11A(2), the said condition is not satisfied, accordingly, neither the interest is payable u/s 11AB nor the penalty is imposable under section 11AC.
 
Prepared By: - Alakh Bhandari

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