News Update

GST - Neither SCN nor the order spell out the reasons for retrospective cancellation of registration, hence cannot be sustained: HCGST - Non-application of mind - If reply was unsatisfactory, details could have been sought - Record does not reflect that such exercise was done - Matter remitted: HCGST - Merely because a taxpayer has not filed returns for some period does not mean that registration is required to be cancelled with retrospective date also covering the period when returns were filed and taxpayer was compliant: HCGST - Petitioner's reply, although terse, is not taken into account while passing assessment orders - Petitioner put on terms, another opportunity provided: HCUnveil One Nation; One Debt Code; One Compliance Rule for Centre & StatesChina moves WTO against US tax subsidies for EVs & renewable energyMore on non-doms - The UK Spring Budget 2024 (See TII Edit)Notorious history-sheeter Mukhtar Ansari succumbs to cardiac arrest in UP jailTraining Program for Cambodian civil servants commences at MussoorieNY imposes USD 15 congestion taxCBIC revises tariff value of edible oils, gold & silver45 killed as bus races into ravine in South AfricaCBIC directs all Customs offices to remain open on Saturday & SundayBankman-Fried jailed for 25 yrs in FTX scamI-T- Once the citizen deposits the tax upon coming to know of his liability, it cannot be said that he has deliberately or willfully evaded the depositing of tax and interest in terms of Section 234A can be waived: HCHouthis attack continues in Red Sea; US military shoots down 4 dronesI-T- Secured creditor has priority charge over secured asset, over claims of I-T Department & other Departments; any excess amount recovered by Secured Creditor from auction of secured asset, over & above the dues payable to it, are to be remitted to the Departments: HCFederal Govt hands out USD 60 mn to rebuild collapsed bridge in BaltimoreI-T - Receipts of sale of scrap being part & parcel of activity and being proximate thereto would also be within ambit of gains derived from industrial undertaking for purpose of computing deduction u/s 80-IB: HCCanadian School Boards sue social media titans for 4 bn Canadian dollar in damagesI-T - Once assssee on year of reversal has paid taxes on excess provision and similar feature appeared in earlier years and assesee had payments for liquidated damages on delay of deliverables, no adverse inference can be drawn: HCFormer IPS officer Sanjiv Bhatt jailed for 20 yrs for planting drugs to frame lawyerST - Software development service & IT-enabled service provided by assessee was exempt from tax during relevant period, by virtue of CBEC's Notification & Circular; demands raised for such period not sustainable: CESTATUN says Households waste across world is now at least one billion meals a dayCus - Order rejecting exporter's request for conversion of Shipping Bills on grounds that the same has been made by exporter beyond period of three months from date of Let Export Order in terms of CBEC Circular No. 36/2010-Cus : CESTATIndia, China hold fresh dialogue for complete disengagement on Western borders: MEACus - No Cess is payable when Basic Customs Duty is found to be Nil: CESTATThakur says India is prepared for 2036 OlympicsCX - As per settled law, a right acquired as result of a statutory provision, cannot be taken away retrospectively unless said statutory provision so provides or by necessary implication has such effect: CESTAT
 
CX - Clandestine removal of Terpene - Once demand is confirmed, imposition of penalty u/s 11AC is mandatory and automatic - contention of appellant that adjudicating authority had not imposed any penalty is clearly wrong: CESTAT

By TIOL News Service

MUMBAI, MAY 05, 2015: THE applicant M/s Tien Yuan India Pvt. Ltd. filed an application for rectification of mistake purportedly made by the CESTAT in the final order dated 05/11/2014 2014-TIOL-2860-CESTAT-MUM. It is contended by the appellant that upholding of penalty of Rs.1,55,105/- on the appellant under/Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944 is an error apparent on the face of the records.

The reason attributed is that no penalty was imposed on the applicant by the adjudicating authority in the order appealed against. Furthemore, the Member (Judicial) has disagreed with Member (Technical) and has held that no penalty under Section 11AC is imposable on the applicants and its directors and the 3rd Member, Member (Technical) who heard the difference of opinion has also not imposed any penalty on the appellant on the alleged removal of Terpene without payment of duty.

The Bench after perusing the records observed -

++ As regards the contention that the adjudicating authority did not impose any penalty of Rs.1,55,105/- in respect of Terpene cleared without payment of duty, this contention is clearly wrong. In the order appealed against, the adjudicating authority, in para 194, in clause (v) thereof has confirmed recovery of Cenvat credit of Rs.22,13,22,732/- under Rule 14 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 read with Section 11A(1) of the Central Excise Act. In clause (vi) of the said order, he has further confirmed a Central Excise duty amounting to Rs.1,55,105/- in respect of Terpene cleared without payment of duty under the first proviso to Section 11A of the said Central Excise Act. In clause (viii) he has confirmed a penalty of Rs.22,14,77,837/- under Rule 15 (2) read with Section 11AC which is the sum total of the demands confirmed of (Rs.22,13,22,732/- + Rs.1,55,105/-) Rs.22,14,77,837. In other words, while confirming the penalty, the adjudicating authority has taken into accounts the sum of Rs.1,55,105/- in respect of Terpene cleared clandestinely. Therefore, the contention of the appellant in this regard is clearly wrong.

++ As regards the contention that the Hon'ble Member (Judicial) has held that no penalty is imposable on the company as well as the directors under Section 11AC, this observation pertains to his findings that Cenvat credit of Rs.3,93,78,240/- is available to the appellant. In his order, the Hon'ble Member (Judicial) has not given any contrary findings as to the confirmation of demand of Rs.1,55,105/- in respect of clandestine clearance of Terpene by the appellant or to the imposition of penalty of equivalent amount on the appellant. The said demand has been confirmed under the first proviso to Section 11A (1) of the Central Excise Act, 1944, that is, alleging suppression, wilful mis-statement of facts, etc. with an intent to evade duty. Once the demand is confirmed invoking the said proviso, imposition of penalty under Section 11AC is mandatory and automatic. Further in the summing up portion, the learned Member (Judicial) has clearly agreed that the duty demand of Rs.1,55,105/- for clearance of Terpene clandestinely is sustainable. If that be so, in the absence of a contrary decision by the Hon'ble Member (Judicial), it cannot be said that he has waived the penalty of equivalent amount on the appellant, which is a mandatory provision.

Holding that there is no merit in the application for rectification of mistake, the same was dismissed as being devoid of merits.

(See 2015-TIOL-799-CESTAT-MUM)


POST YOUR COMMENTS
   

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