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/2015-16/2798

Wrong availment of cenvat credit but not utilized by the assessee , whether penalty imposed vide Sec 11AC?

Case-C.C.E., BANGALORE VersusFLEXTRONICS TECHNOLOGIES (INDIA) PVT. LTD.

Citation-2015 (323) E.L.T. 273 (Kar.)

Brief Facts-This appeal is filed by the Department challenging the order passed by the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal dated 13-8-2010, vacating the levy of penalty of ` 6,00,000/- imposed by the Commissioner of Central Excise. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee is engaged in manufacture and clearance of excisable goods viz., PCB Assemblies, TV tuners. Set-top boxes under Chapter 85 of the Schedule to Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985, and are also availing benefit of Cenvat credit facility under Cenvat Credit Rules. It was noticed by the Department that there was irregular availment of Cenvat credit by the assessee and after passing adjudication proceedings, the Commissioner of Central Excise imposed penalty of ` 6,00,000/- under Rule 13 of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2002 read with Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The assessee carried the matter in appeal before the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal and the Tribunal after examining the issue at length, has held that there was no intention on the part of the assessee to evade payment of duty and as such, the penalty of ` 6,00,000/- imposed by the Commissioner was not sustainable and accordingly, vacated the penalty, against which, this appeal is filed by the Department.

Appelants Contention-It was noticed by the Department that there was irregular availment of Cenvat credit by the assessee and after passing adjudication proceedings, the Commissioner of Central Excise imposed penalty of ` 6,00,000/- under Rule 13 of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2002 read with Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944.

Respondents Contention-None appeared for the respondent

Reasoning Of Judgement-The tribunal have heard the learned Counsel appearing for the appellant and perused the records. Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944, contemplates, penalty for short-levy or non-levy of duty in certain cases, i.e., where any duty of Excise has not been levied or paid or has been short-levied or short-paid or erroneously refunded, by the reason of fraud, collusion, any wilful misstatement; or suppression of facts or contravention of any of the provisions of the Act or of the rules made thereunder with intent to evade payment of duty. From the records, it is observed that the assessee had availed the wrong credit in their account but has not utilized the same and after it was pointed out by the audit party the same was reversed by the assessee. In such circumstances, the Tribunal has rightly held that there was no intention on the part of the assessee to evade payment of tax and the assessee had not utilized the amount credited. To attract levy of penalty as per the provisions of Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944, the Revenue has to prove that the assessee has availed the Cenvat credit wrongly by reason of fraud or collusion or any wilful misstatement or suppression of facts, which is not forthcoming in the present case .In view of the same, the issue involved in this appeal is mainly related to the facts of the case and the Revenue having failed to establish the case of imposing penalty under Section 11AC, we are not inclined to interfere with the order passed by the Tribunal and in the circumstances, we do not find any substantial question of law arising for consideration. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.

Decision-Appeal dismissed

Comment-The analogy in the case is that as earlier the assessee was wrongly availing the cenvat credit but has not utilized the same and on pointing out by the audit party the same was reversed therefore, it cannot be held that the assessee has the intention to evade the payment of duty and the assessee is not liable to be penalised under Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944.

Prepared By-Neelam Jain

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