Chartered Accountant
Bookmark and Share
click here to subscribe our newsletter
 
 
Corporate News *  Missing seized records must be considered while testing ITC claim; duplicate GST demands ordered corrected: Delhi High Court. *  GST appeal can’t be rejected without addressing taxpayer’s grounds: Allahabad High Court. *  Surplus IGST credit can offset CGST, SGST shortfall: GSTAT. *  GST refund can’t be denied when cancelled airfares are returned with tax: GSTAT. *  3 Hearing notices issued within 2 minutes: Gujarat High Court flags portal flaw, seeks report. *  GSTR-9, GSTR-9C filing for FY 2025-26 enabled; pending GSTR-1 and GSTR-3B must be filed first. *  Dupattas are exempt fabrics, can’t be taxed as fibres at 4%: Madras High Court. *  Full transitional credit allowed on capital goods received after GST rollout: GSTAT denies Rs. 6.99 lakh export duty credit. *  GST return mismatch alone can’t justify fraud proceedings: GSTAT orders fresh adjudication under section 73. *  Supplier found non-existent later can’t alone justify input tax credit denial: GSTAT. *  GST interest stops once tax reaches government account, can’t run until return filing: GSTAT. *  Cancelled flat booking- GST refund can’t be denied without excluding COVID period from limitation: GSTAT. *  India notifies rules of origin for India–New Zealand FTA. *  Incomplete E-bike kits classifiable as complete vehicles, but not eligible for CKD duty concession: CESTAT. *  Same GST rate on main input and output can’t by itself bar inverted duty refund: GSTAT. *  Unjust enrichment doesn’t apply to customs refunds from assessments finalised before July 13, 2006: Gujarat High Court. *  CENVAT credit can’t be denied solely because plant And machinery are embedded in earth: Karnataka High Court. *  DFIA exports ineligible for RoDTEP benefits; customs directs repayment with applicable interest. *  Second E-Way bill alone doesn’t prove another supply: GSTAT. *  Bail denied in Rs. 1.19 crore fake GST refund case over risk of accused absconding again: Punjab and Haryana High Court. *  GST registration can be restored after revocation deadline if outstanding dues are paid: Gauhati High Court. *  Multiple GST proceedings over same suppliers: Calcutta High Court directs dept. to share findings for adjudication. *  E-Governance portal services not OIDAR, fixed deposit interest not taxable: CESTAT. *  Rs. 500 Stamp duty required on authority letters for CAs, CMA and GST practitioners in Pune GST division.  *  Rs. 1.10 crore GST refund must be paid in cash after business closure: Allahabad High Court. *  Godown rent attracts 18% GST even when used exclusively for exempt agricultural warehousing: AAR. *  GST portal launches "Multi-State Registration" facility: one master TRN for registration applications across multiple States/UTs. *  RoDTEP scheme extended till 31st December, 2026.  *  Mere disagreement with order can’t override Rs. 20 lakh appeal limit: GSTAT. *  Customs interest can’t be backdated before confiscation liability is determined; nearly 8 year period excluded: Delhi High Court.
Subject News *  GST summons: anticipatory bail maintainable without arrest order, but relief denied in evasion case: Allahabad High Court. *  GST Appeal can’t be decided without hearing taxpayer’s objections to fresh evidence: Allahabad High Court. *  GST ITC can’t be reversed merely because supplier grants discount without reducing tax liability: GSTAT. *  Mere quoting of GST provision is not a valid charge: GSTAT quashes ITC denial. *  Personal hearing mandatory before adverse GST order, even without taxpayer’s request: Rajasthan High Court. *  Parallel bail pleas without full disclosure amount to abuse of process Rs. 43.08 crore GST case sent for fresh hearing: Supreme Court. *  GST refund based on unchallenged advance ruling can’t be recovered using later circular: GSTAT. *  Payment of GST alone doesn’t end interest and penalty liability when tax and interest remain unpaid beyond 30 days of notice: GSTAT. *  GST demand over builders’ 80% procurement rule requires reasoned adjudication: GSTAT. *  Eligible ITC doesn’t automatically entitle taxpayers to compensation cess refund on domestic sales: GSTAT. *  GST confiscation order passed before reply deadline invalid: GSTAT. *  GST interest can’t be retained after tax refund on delayed export receipts: Punjab & Haryana High Court. *  GST appeal can’t be dismissed over pre-deposit shortfall without opportunity To respond: Bombay High Court. *  DGGI SCN can’t be challenged before reply and adjudication:Chhattisgarh High Court. *  GST input tax credit can’t be denied solely due to supplier’s retrospective registration cancellation: GSTAT. *  GST notice must explain fraud allegations; merely repeating section 74 Is not enough:  Himachal Pradesh High Court. *  Audit detection alone can’t justify GST fraud penalty; specific suppression must be proved: GSTAT. *  GST order uploaded only under ‘Additional Notices’ tab without separate intimation set aside: Calcutta High Court. *  Service Tax appeal can’t be rejected for missing pre-deposit proof when payment is already recorded: CESTAT. *  SGST dept. can’t hear appeal against CGST order: Calcutta High Court. *  Mere dispatch of tax order can’t prove service or make appeal time-barred: CESTAT. *  Dealer incentives can’t be taxed merely on ledger entries: CESTAT. *  DGFT orders quashed for failure to supply DRI letter relied upon in SCN: Bombay High Court. *  GST penalty u/s 122(1A) can’t apply to Pre-2021 transactions; unregistered beneficiaries also covered: Delhi High Court. *  Expired E-way bill caused by wrong PIN code can’t justify GST penalty without intent to evade tax: GSTAT. *  Used railway rails can’t be taxed as track material without proof they are fit for reuse: CESTAT. *  Earlier DGGI notice doesn’t bar separate GST demand on different issue: Delhi High Court. *  ITC dispute involves no question of law: GSTAT directs appeal to Vice-President. *  Earlier DGGI notice doesn’t bar separate GST demand On different issue: Delhi High Court. *  No E-way bill required for interstate goods movement in november 2017: GSTAT quashes detention and penalty.  

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