Chartered Accountant
Bookmark and Share
click here to subscribe our newsletter
 
 
Corporate News *  Dept. Can’t Classify Product as Zarda Scented Tobacco After Repeatedly Approving It As Chewing Tobacco: CESTAT *  Mere Uploading Of GST Order On Portal Is Not “Valid” Service: Tripura HC *  CGST Can Proceed Even If SGST Closed Similar Case Earlier: Delhi HC *  SC upholds 28% GST on online gaming with retrospective effect. *  West Bengal Govt cuts E-way Bill Threshold limit to Rs. 50,000 for intra-state goods movement. *  Criminal Prosecution Under Central Excise Act Can’t Continue After CESTAT Sets Aside Duty Demand on Merits: Punjab & Haryana High Court. *  Madras High Court Quashes GST Assessment Orders for Denial of Personal Hearing; Remands Matter Subject to 10% Deposit *  Ex Parte GST Order: Madras High Court Directs Immediate Removal of Bank/ITC Attachment Upon 25% Deposit *  J.K. Cement Receives GST Demand Order of Rs 8,02,113/- from Ahmedabad Tax Authority *  Delhi Police EOW Busts Alleged Rs. 128 Crore GST Fake Invoice Network. *  REPLY TO SCN CAN’T BE TREATED AS “EMPTY FORMALITY”: ORISSA HIGH COURT QUASHES GST DEMAND OF RS. 57.30 LAKH *  Challenge to CGST Provisions restricting ITC to Bonafide Purchasers : Allahabad HC issues notice *  CBIC Notifies Revised Customs Tariff Values for Edible Oils, Gold, Silver, Brass Scrap and Areca Nuts *  Delhi HC Orders Removal of GST Attachment After Statutory 1 Year Period Expired *  GSTAT Extends Relaxed Appeal Filing Guidelines till December 31, 2026 *  AO fails to Provide Import - Export Data from DGFT to Taxpayer for Reconciliation *  Gold, Silver Imports To Get Costlier As Govt Raises Customs Duty To 10%  *  GSTAT Enables Pre-Payment Access to Document Upload and Checklist for GST Appeal Filing *  GST Portal Restrictions Can’t Override Statute: Gujarat HC Allows Cross-State Transfer Of CGST ITC After Amalgamation *  Centre Revises HS Codes for Large Diameter Steel Pipes Used in Oil & Gas Pipelines *  Customs Duty Liability Arises On Warehouse Clearance Date: Supreme Court *  Government lifts export ban on de-oiled rice bran *  CESTAT Grants 12% Interest on Pre-Deposit for Investigation from Date of Deposit till Refund and Denies Interest on Interest. *  Government Overhauls GST Classification Framework for Non-Alcoholic Beverages; Fruit Juice Drinks, Milk-Based Beverages and Caffeinated Drinks to Attract Revised 5% and 40% GST Rates from May 1, 2026 *  India’s gross GST collections hit a record Rs 2.42 lakh crore in April, up 8.7% *  Customs clearance stalled, revenue hit over MRP dispute *  Shipping Corporation explores Middle East routes as Hormuz tensions disrupt cargo movement *  India, Kenya signs MoU for exchange of pre-arrival customs information *  No demand of Taxes under Reverse Charge if Tax Already Discharged by Service Provider under forward charge *  The India-New Zealand Free Trade Agreement, signed "once-in-a-generation" deal that eliminates tariffs on 100% of Indian exports to New Zealand
Subject News *  Consignment Sales Can’t Be Reclassified as Inter-State Sales Based on Pre-Agreement Evidence: CESTAT *  Exporter Can’t Be Denied Advance Authorization Benefit Due To ICEGATE Technical Glitch: Delhi High Court *  No GST Demand For Mere Wrong Set-Off Of IGST Credit Under CGST And SGST Heads: Kerala HC. *  Cenvat Credit Can’t Be Denied on Input Services Having Nexus With Manufacturing Activities: CESTAT *  Pending Proceedings Can’t Survive Without Saving Clause: Calcutta High Court Quashes GST Demand of Rs. 6.28 Crore After Omission of Rule 96(10) *  Madras HC Quashes GST Demands on TASMAC (Tamil Nadu State Marketing Corporation) Bar Licence Fee *  GST Proceedings Cannot Survive Omitted Rule Without Saving Clause: Calcutta HC *  Provisional Release Can’t Be Denied Solely On Dept. Suspicion Of Misclassification And Undervaluation Of Imported Goods: CESTAT *  Businesses Should Not Be Kept Outside GST Regime Without Due Process: Gauhati High Court *  Punjab & Haryana HC Directs Reconsideration of Contractors’ Claim for Additional GST Payment After Tax Rate Hike From 12% to 18% *  S. 108 Statements Can’t Be Sole Basis Without Following Section 138B Procedure: CESTAT *  Bombay High Court Frames Key Questions on Mandatory Distribution of ITC U/s 20 CGST Act *  Filing of Annexure-B for Refund Applications involving Accumulated ITC using the offline utility in GST portal: GSTN *  No Service Tax on Parent Company’s Un-Invoiced Cost Allocations Without Actual Service or Consideration: CESTAT  *  Calcutta High Court Upholds GST Classification of Polypropylene Leno Bags as Plastic Products *  DRC-01 Summary Can’t Replace Mandatory SCN: Gauhati High Court *  GSTAT Issues Major Bench Allocation Framework; All Appeals to First Go Before Division Bench *  ITC Blocking Without Reasoned Order Violates Rule 86A; Punjab & Haryana HC Directs Release of Credit *  Allahabad HC Refuses Bail to CGST Superintendent In Rs. 70 Lakh Bribery Case *  S.130 Can’t Be Invoked Without Prior Tax Determination U/s 73/74: Allahabad High Court Quashes GST Confiscation Proceedings *  SC grants Bail to Rs 54cr GST case  *  Karnataka HC Sets Aside Duplicate GST Orders, Orders Fresh Hearing on GSTIN Cancellation *  DRC-01 Summary Can’t Replace Mandatory SCN: Gauhati High Court *  Transfer Of Unutilized ITC After Amalgamation - Supreme Court Issues Notice *  PUNJAB & HARYANA HC QUASHES GST CANCELLATION NOTICE FOR FAILURE TO PROVIDE CBIC ENQUIRY REPORT *  LICENSE FEE, TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE CHARGES NOT INCLUDIBLE IN CUSTOMS VALUE UNLESS THEY ARE A CONDITION OF SALE: CESTAT *  DELHI HC ORDERS REMOVAL OF GST ATTACHMENT AFTER STATUTORY 1 YEAR PERIOD EXPIRED *  CUSTOMS BROKER CAN’T BE FAULTED JUST BECAUSE EXPORTER’S GST REGISTRATION WAS PREVIOUSLY CANCELLED: CESTAT   *  Supreme Court Dismisses Review Plea Against Delhi HC Ruling Holding Real Operator Behind Fake GST Firms Liable As ‘Taxable Person  *  GST Appeal Can’t Be Rejected Merely Because DRC-07 Was Not Uploaded On Portal: Bombay High Court  

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