News Update

CBIC revises tariff value of edible oils, gold & silverFormer IPS officer Sanjiv Bhatt jailed for 20 yrs for planting drugs to frame lawyerCentre receives Rs 18.5 lakh crore tax revenue upto Feb monthUN says Households waste across world is now at least one billion meals a dayExpert Committee on developing GIFT IFSC as 'Global Finance and Accounting Hub' submits report to IFSCAIndia, China hold fresh dialogue for complete disengagement on Western borders: MEADefence Production issues notification for re-organisation of DGQAThakur 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 LebanonMacron pillories EU-South Africa trade deal; calls it ‘really bad’ in BrazilThailand’s Lower House okays Bill to legitimise same-sex marriageYellen warns China against clean energy dumpingMilky 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 billionJustice Ritu Raj Awasthi joins as Judicial member of Lokpal
 
Duty not paid - Penalty follows in all cases, suppression or not

FEBRUARY 28, 2015

By S Sivakumar, LL.B., FCA, FCS, ACSI, MBA, Advocate

AS per the new version of Section 11AC of the CEA, as proposed in the Finance Bill, 2015, in the case on non-suppression cases, the following shall be the penalty that is imposable:

a) in addition to the duty as determined under sub-section (10) of section 11A, a penalty not exceeding 10% of the duty so determined or Rs.5000 whichever is higher shall be payable;

b) if duty and interest payable thereon under section 11AA is paid either before issue of show cause notice or within 30 days of issue of show cause notice, no penalty shall be payable and all proceedings in respect of said duty and interest shall be deemed to be concluded;

c) if duty as determined under sub-section (10) of section 11A and interest payable thereon under section 11AA is paid within 30 days of the date of communication of order of the Central Excise Officer who has determined such duty, the amount of penalty shall be equal to 25% of the penalty so imposed, provided that such reduced penalty is also paid within 30 days of the date of communication of such order.

To my mind, this is perhaps, the first time that I can remember of, in so far as central excise law is concerned, that penalty is proposed even when there has been no fraud or collusion or suppression or misstatement of facts with an intent to evade duty. A closer look at the new Section 11AC, which seems draconian to say the least, indicates that the assessee would be completely left at the mercy of the Department, even in cases involving genuine issues involving interpretation of the statutory provisions, etc. Mere failure to pay duty within the time frame would now lead to drastic consequences, even in cases where the assessee had genuine reasons not to or delay the payment of duty.

We have similar statutory provisions that are being introduced in the Finance Act, 1994 in terms of the newly proposed Sections 76 and 78 and with Section 80 no longer being in the statute book, even honest assessees will have to face drastic consequences in the form of imposition of penalties. The ‘penalty related' consequences under the service tax law would seem more draconian, vis-à-vis the honest assessees.

I am forced to draw a parallel from the VAT law (that prevails in Karnataka), in terms of which, a mandatory penalty of 10% of the VAT is imposed on any non or short payment of VAT, irrespective of whether there has been a suppression of facts or not. In fact, we have a common penalty of10% across all cases and the concept of ‘mens rea' is not relevant under the KVAT Act, 2003 in so far as imposition of penalty is concerned.

Talking of the new amendments, one is scared as to how these provisions would be implemented by an unfriendly tax administration?

And as always, the constitutional validity of these provisions can always be challenged!

( DISCLAIMER : The views expressed are strictly of the author and Taxindiaonline.com doesn't necessarily subscribe to the same. Taxindiaonline.com Pvt. Ltd. is not responsible or liable for any loss or damage caused to anyone due to any interpretation, error, omission in the articles being hosted on the sites)

 


 RECENT DISCUSSION(S) POST YOUR COMMENTS
   
 
Sub: Imposition of Penalty

It is better to have a tariff heading for penalty. In each case the Government without litigation ask them to pay penalty as a routine affair. If the payment is delayed impose interest. Taking out Sec 80 will bring such scenario only.


R Vaidyanathan
Consultant - Indirect Taxation

Posted by Ramadoss Vaidyanathan
 

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