News Update

India, China hold fresh dialogue for complete disengagement on Western borders: MEAThakur says India is prepared for 2036 OlympicsCBDT substitutes Form in ITR-5EV Revolution: Lessons for India to learn from US and China!London court green-signals auction of luxury apartment of fugitive Nirav ModiGovt consults RBI; finalises borrowing plan for first half of FY 2024-25Gadkari says Farmers’ protest is politically-motivatedVP calls upon women entrepreneurs to be 'Vocal for Local'America offers USD 10 mn bounty for information on ‘Blackcat’ hackers after UnitedHealth gets hitI-T- The order of the ITSC can only be reopened in cases of fraud or misrepresentation: HC8 persons including Hezbollah militants killed in Israeli strike on LebanonI-T - Income so surrendered on account of investment in excess stock during course of survey cannot be brought to tax under deeming provisions of section 69B: ITATMacron pillories EU-South Africa trade deal; calls it ‘really bad’ in BrazilI-T-Power of revision need not be exercised where facts do not reveal any lack of enquiry by AO into relevant issue & when twin requirements of order being erroneous as well as prejudicial to Revenue's interests, are not satisfied: ITATThailand’s Lower House okays Bill to legitimise same-sex marriageI-T -Penalty u/s 271(1)(c) cannot be imposed where an assessee claims deduction u/s 80P while being ineligible therefor, but being under the bona fide impression of being eligible for such benefit : ITATYellen warns China against clean energy dumpingCus - Enhancement of declared value of imported goods is not tenable, where Department adduces no material to show how the enhanced value was computed & where no cogent rationale is made out for rejecting declared value: CESTATMilky Way’s central black hole - Twisted magnetic field observedCus - Assessee has not proved beyond reasonable doubt that goods in question imported under air way bills/bills of entry were in fact filed by him and hence the only natural corollary available to Revenue is confiscation of same: CESTATSmall investors help Trump Media’s valuation skyrocket to USD 13 billionST - When the facts are in the knowledge of department subsequent SCN alleging suppression cannot be issued and entire demand was found beyond normal period of limitation: CESTATFM Nirmala Sitharaman declines to contest LS elections as she has no fundsST - Tripura State Rifles not required to pay Service Tax under heading of Security Services, as it is is not engaged in business of providing security services: CESTATJustice Ritu Raj Awasthi joins as Judicial member of LokpalCX - Clandestine removal alleged based on consumption of raw inputs and heightened electricity usage - Tax demands based on third party statements but without permitting cross examination of deponents; case remanded to allow this exercise: CESTAT
 
CX - Short payment of duty of Rs 6158 & duty demand of Rs 457 Cr by invoking rule 8(3A) of CER, 2002 - law does not care for trifles - Revenue interpretation may lead to position of chaos rather than harmony and certainty: CESTAT

By TIOL News Service

AHMEDABAD, DEC 19, 2014: IN the case of Shreeji Surface Coatings Pvt. Ltd. - 2014-TIOL-2235-HC-AHM-CX, the Gujarat High Court while setting aside the orders of the lower authorities and allowing the petition by following the decision in Indsur Global Ltd. - 2014-TIOL-2115-HC-AHM-CX inter alia observed -

"4. When the entire showcause notice, order in original and appellate order are based on Subrule (3A) of Rule 8, the portion of which came to be struck down, such orders cannot survive. We have narrated facts only to demonstrate that the facts of the present case squarely fall within the portion of the Rule which was declared as ultra vires by the Court. It was only because the petitioner paid interest of barely about Rs.12,000/- through Cenvat Credit instead of paying it in cash, their all subsequent clearances were stigmatized. This was solely relying on the portion of Subrule (3A) of Rule 8, which required that the future clearances of a defaulter must be without utilization of the Cenvat Credit."

In the aforementioned case the duty demanded through account current PLA was Rs.19,16,737/-.

In the present case before CESTAT the "clearances were stigmatized" because of short payment of Rs.4,798/- in the month of March, 2011 and short payment of Rs.1,360/- in the month of April, 2011. These short payments which allegedly occurred due to calculation mistake were made good in the month of July and September, 2011 along with interest.

But the penalty the appellant had to pay was Godzilla esque. Invoking the not-so-humble provisions of rule 8(3A) of CER, 2002, the department issued a SCN for recovery of Rs.4,57,25,70,950/- [Rupees Four hundred fifty seven crores twenty five lakhs seventy thousand nine hundred fifty only] in cash/account current PLA.

The CCE, Vadodara was perhaps awed by the enormity of the demand and he confirmed the same along with an equivalent penalty and interest.

Any other assessee would have vanished - ease of doing business!

The assessee in question filed a stay application along with the appeal before the CESTAT and the matter was decided recently. Incidentally, the order was passed a few days before the landmark Gujarat High Court decision we mentioned at the outset.

Be that as it may, after considering the submissions made by both sides the CESTAT allowed the appeal.

And while doing so, the Bench observed as below -

++ The issue involved in the present proceedings is whether due to a calculation error, amounting to a short payment of Rs.6,158/-, appellant can be slapped with a demand of approximately Rs.457 Crores, along with interest and an equivalent amount of penalty. According to Revenue short payment of Rs.6,158/- is a case of default under Rule 8(3A) as upheld by CESTAT Delhi in the case of Godrej Hershey Limited vs. CCE, Bhopal - 2011-TIOL-65-CESTAT-DEL.

++ It is the case of appellant that a calculation error of a minor amount cannot be termed as a default of Rule 8(3A). CBEC Circular F.No. 206/01/96-CX-6 dated 30.9.1996 is relied upon by the appellant to emphasise that even after introduction of self-assessment scheme field formations have the responsibility to check arithmetic accuracy of duty paid.

++ From the above legal provisions it is observed that field formations are required to take recovery action under Section 11A of the Central Excise Act, 1944 if there is any calculation error and rate of duty difference. If a short calculation of duty is attributed to be a default of Rule 8(3A) of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 then every short payment paid on being pointed out by department, or suomoto by an assessee, will be a case of default. At the same time any valuation/ classification dispute detected by department and upheld by any appellate authority up to Supreme Court will also be a case of default of Rule 8(3A). Such a situation may arise after years of litigation also and may lead to a position of chaos rather than harmony and certainty in taxation matters.

++ We are, therefore, of the opinion that default in payment of duty mentioned in Rule 8 (3A) will be non-payment of duty as assessed by an assessee. However, there could be situations where an assessee deliberately calculates less duty liability in order to avoid penal provisions. The default with respect to Rule 8(3A) should be a deliberate act in total defiance of the law and not for minor calculation errors. For such minor calculation errors the provisions of Section 11A of the Central Excise Act, 1944 are attracted as per circulars issued by CBEC.

++ In the present case appellant themselves detected short payment and paid the amounts along with interest and intimated the department. Appellant had sufficient balance in its duty payment accounts and is paying crores of duty by issuing thousands of invoices. A minor calculation error cannot be categorised as defiance of law and will not amount to a default of Rule 8(3A) as these provisions will be applicable to non-payment of duty as self-assessed by an assessee. In the case of the appellant the short payment is so small that the judgment of Hon'ble Gujarat High Courts' order, in the case of Baman and Berry Bearing Private Limited vs. UOI will be applicable even if the act of the appellant is considered as default of Rule 8(3A) because law does not care for trifles (Lex non curat de minimis).

++ We respectfully differ with the views expressed by CESTAT Delhi (Godrej Hershey Limited) as this interpretation will lead to chaos and will not be implementable. In our opinion the default of Rule 8(3A) will take place only for non-payment of duty as assessed by the appellant. It is not the case of Revenue that there is a deliberate less calculation of duty on the part of the appellant.

++ There are also provisions in the Central Excise Act, 1944 and the Finance Act, 1994 that there is no need to issue show cause notice if an assessee pays the tax, along with interest, either on his own detection or after being pointed out by department officer; provided there is no element of fraud, willful misstatement etc. with intention to evade payment of tax. If the interpretation given by the Revenue is accepted than there will not be a single case where show cause notice will not be required to be issued even after payment of differential duty by an assessee after clearance of goods.

Holding that the appellants' case is not a default as envisaged in Rule 8(3A) of the CER, 2002, the appeal was allowed by setting aside the OIO passed by the adjudicating authority.

(See 2014-TIOL-2573-CESTAT-AHM)


 RECENT DISCUSSION(S) POST YOUR COMMENTS
   
 
Sub: Godzilla demand of excise duty

Ref: DDT dated 19-12-2014. The CESTAT has set aside the demand but the adjudicating authority (Commissioner) must have shown the said adjudication in his performance report. There should be some sort of accountability and the Commissioner concerned should be directed to defend the Department before the CESTAT in such cases. This is a huge wastage of valuable resources of the nation but Departmental Officers are rewarded, not penalized, because such cases pave the way for the creation of Tax Recovery Cell (TRC). This type of approach has been the foundation stone of the recent restructuring of the Department.
**Shashwat Jain


Posted by shashwat jain
 

AR not Afar by SK Rahman

TIOL Tube Latest

Shri Shailendra Kumar, Trustee, TIOL Trust, giving welcome speech at TIOL Awards 2023




Shri M C Joshi, Former Chairman, CBDT




Address by Shri Buggana Rajendranath, Hon'ble Finance Minister of Andhra Pradesh at TIOL Awards 2023