News Update

ISRO study reveals possibility of water ice in polar cratersBiden says migration has been good for US economyUS says NO to Rafah operation unless humanitarian plan is in place + Colombia snaps off ties with IsraelMay Day protests in Paris & Istanbul; hundreds arrestedSaudi fitness instructor jailed for social media post - Amnesty International seeks releaseDelhi HC orders DGCA to deregister GO First’s aircraftIndia successfully tests SMART anti-submarine missile-assisted torpedo systemKiller heatwave kills hundreds of thousands of fish in Southern VietnamHong Kong struck by close to 1000 lightningColumbia Univ campus turns into ‘American Gaza’ - Pro-Palestinian students & counter-protesters clashViksit Bharat @2047: Taxes form the BedrockGST - April month collections go past Rs 2 lakh crore threshold - peak to Rs 2.1 lakh croreCX - Alleged clandestine removal - Not replying to SCN on the ground that letter is not furnished by department is only a ruse as reliance is not placed on the same by the respondent authority for adjudicating the SCNs: SCGST - Proper officer observes that the reply filed is not satisfactory and since the assessee has nothing more to say, demand is confirmed - Officer has not applied his mind - Matter remitted: HCGST - Petitioner had no opportunity to even object to the retrospective cancellation of registration - Petitioner does not seek to continue his business and has sought cancellation of registration - Order modified accordingly: HCGST - Seizing the outward movement of funds from petitioner's bank account - Life of an order of provisional attachment u/s 83(2) is only one year - HDFC Bank, henceforth, cannot restrain operation of bank account: HCTax - on Death and ContemplationDelhi, Noida schools receive bomb threats; Children sent back homeI-T- Writ court is not required to interfere with assessment order, where assessee also has available option of statutory appeal: HCED seizes Rs 90 Cr stored in crypto in Gaming App scamI-T-Transfer of assessment is sustained, where assessee does not reply to any notice issued in this regard & where valid reasons exist for transferring assessment: HCHM appeals Naxalism will be erased in 2 yrs if Modi voted back to powerAmerica softens offence related to use of marijuanaI-T - Rule 11UA does not mentions pre-condition of approval of balance sheet by Annual General Meeting: ITATAfter US & UK India comes third in terms of 79 mn cyber attacks in 2023: StudyCBIC revises tariff value of gold, silver & edible oils
 
CX - Explanation inserted in s.32O(1)(i) of CEA, 1944 is clarificatory as evidenced from Statement of Objects and Reasons and, therefore, has retrospective effect: HC

 

By TIOL News Service

CHANDIGARH, MAR 26, 2018: THE petitioner filed an application dated 11.07.2015 u/s 32E of the CEA, 1944 for settlement of the case covered by SCN dated 28.04.2015.

The CCESC by order dated 23.12.2015 rejected the application holding that it had no jurisdiction to entertain the application as it was barred under section 32(O)(1)(i) of the CEA, 1944. Inasmuch as a previous settlement application dated 15.04.2013 was disposed of by an order dated 31.01.2014 which besides settling the duty at about Rs. 1.82 crores imposed a penalty of Rs. 50,000/-.

Section 32O(1)(i) reads –

Section 32-O. Bar on subsequent application for settlement in certain cases.-

(1) Where,

(i) an order of settlement, provides for the imposition of a penalty on the person who made the application under section 32E for settlement, on the ground of concealment of particulars of his duty liability; or

[Explanation.- In this clause, the concealment of particulars of duty liability relates to any such concealment made from the Central Excise Officer.]

(ii) x x x; or

(iii) x x x,

then, he shall not be entitled to apply for settlement under section 32E in relation to any other matter.

[Note: The Explanation was inserted by the Finance Act, 2014 w.e.f 06.08.2014.]

The petitioner challenges this order dated 23.12.2015.

It is inter alia submitted that the explanation does not apply to the present case i.e. to the petitioner's settlement application dated 11.07.2015.

Inasmuch as the explanation to section 32(O)(1)(i) was inserted with effect from 06.08.2014 whereas the earlier order on the basis of which the present settlement application is dismissed was passed prior thereto on 31.01.2014 and, therefore, the explanation does not have retrospective effect.

The High Court extracted the Statement of Objects and Reasons with respect to clause 94 of the Finance Bill, 2014and which reads -

"STATEMENT OF OBJECTS AND REASONS:-

The object of the Bill is to give effect to the financial proposals of the Central Government for the financial year 2014-15. The notes on clauses explain the various provisions contained in the Bill.

Clause 94 of the Bill seeks to amend clause (i) of sub section (1) of section 32-O of the Central Excise Act so as to insert an Explanation there into clarify that the concealment of particulars of duty liability relates to any such concealment made from the Central Excise Officer, to avoid confusion as to whether the concealment is from Central Excise Officer or Settlement Commission and making the provision clear."

It is further observed that the Explanation is clarificatory as evidenced from the Statement of Objects and Reasons and being clarificatory, has retrospective effect. Reliance is placed on the apex court decision in Vatika Township Private Limited, 2015-TIOL-78-SC-IT-CB in this regard.

The High Court concluded –

“9. … Section 32(O)(1)(i) does not exclude from its ambit cases where penalty is imposed on the person on the ground of concealment of particulars of his duty liability before the Central Excise Officer. The plain language of the section does not warrant an interpretation to the effect that concealment of particulars only before the Settlement Commission and not before the Central Excise Officer is contemplated. The legislative intent is quite clearly to bar a party from making an application under section 32E of the 1944 Act for settlement if he has concealed particulars of his duty liability. It is difficult to appreciate why concealment of particulars before the Central Excise Officer ought to be treated more lightly than the concealment before the Settle ment Commission.

10. ... Even absent the Explanation we would interpret Section 32(O)(1)(i) to include the orders of settlement which provides for imposition of penalty on the ground of concealment of particulars of duty liability from the Central Excise Officer. We do not express any opinion whether section 32(O)(1)(i) also includes concealment of particulars of duty liability from the Settlement Commission."

The petition was dismissed.

(See 2018-TIOL-515-HC-P&H-CX)


POST YOUR COMMENTS
   

TIOL Tube Latest

Shri N K Singh, recipient of TIOL FISCAL HERITAGE AWARD 2023, delivering his acceptance speech at Fiscal Awards event held on April 6, 2024 at Taj Mahal Hotel, New Delhi.


Shri Ram Nath Kovind, Hon'ble 14th President of India, addressing the gathering at TIOL Special Awards event.