News Update

ST - Demand of differential amount of service tax alleging that entire amount collected by PCO operator is subject to levy of service tax cannot sustain for period prior to 01.03.2011: CESTATIndia almost ready with Rs 600 Crore Chandrayaan-2Govt launches Study in India Portal for foreign studentsAfter issuance of SCN, write to noticees about availing window of Settlement Commission for early settlement of disputes - CBIC instructs fieldCBDT Diktat on Misconduct - But, Mr Prime Minister, Actual High-handedness lies in Revenue Target Fixation!Government imposes definitive anti-dumping duty on Glassware imported from PR China and IndonesiaPunjab Govt invites nomination for post of Special Secretary, GSTInsolvency and Bankruptcy Code - On failure to deposit installments as directed in court order, by JAL Court can attach personal properties of its directors - SC (See 'Legal Desk' in 'CorpLaws.com')Competition Act - Company is duty bound to notify bulk deal of acquisition of shares to commission in accordance to section 6(2) of the Act when Press Release indicates that acquisition is not merely an investment but is part of long term deal - SC (See 'Legal Desk' in 'Corplaws.com')Competition Act - Penalty for not furnishing information u/s 43A is imposable where information is not disclosed with mala fide intention: SC (See 'Legal Desk' in 'Corplaws.com')I-T - Non-obstante provisions of Ss 153A & 153C do not override mandatory provisions of Sections 142(2) & (143(2): HCI-T - Profit yielded by power companies should not be refused for deductions u/s 80IB, just because power generated by company is captively consumed: ITATI-T - Appeal filed before Aaykar Seva Kendra and later transferred to CIT(A) would not be barred by limitation: HCST - Appellant is entitled to CENVAT credit on input services used for construction of immovable property which is ultimately rented out: CESTATCX - Disallowance of CENVAT credit availed on services in proportion to value of clearance of inputs as such does not have backing of law : CESTATCBDT warns of action as plaints of misconduct pour inGovt plans to accelerate growth of districts by 3 per centPM addresses Indian Community in StockholmLaw Commission favours application of RTI Act provisions to BCCIRefund of GST on account of inverted duty structure - formula in rule 89 of CGST Rules corrected to also incorporate reference to turnover and tax payable on account of servicesCGST Rule 89 amended, rule 97 substituted1.3 crore e-Way Bills generated till yesterday; Six more States going for intra-state optionNorth Block says printing of Rs 500 currency notes to be enhanced by five timesIllegal constructions in Kasauli come under SC radar; Demolition orderedST - Standard Chartered Bank undertook collection of export proceeds through their office in UK who retained a part of amount towards collection charges No ST liability on appellant under reverse charge: CESTATApplicability of GST on high sea saleElectoral bonds have built-in security features: GovtAdvance Ruling - The New Goose ( See 'JEST GST on GST Home Page')
 
CX As there is no proceeding u/s 11A(1) against appellant, benefit of proviso to 11A(2) is not available to co-noticee Penalty u/r 26 upheld: CESTAT

By TIOL News Service

MUMBAI, JULY 17, 2017: IN a CE case booked against M/s. Air Carrying Corporation (I) Pvt. Ltd. , the appellant was a co-noticee against whom penal provisions were invoked.

The demand of duty was confirmed and penalty was imposed against the main noticee. Penalty was also imposed on appellantu/r 26 of the CER.

Aggrieved,the appellant isbefore the Tribunal.

It is submitted that the main noticee, M/s. Air Carrying Corporation (I) Pvt. Ltd. had paid the entire duty along with interest and 25% of penalty within 30 days of the order and consequently, in terms of Section 11A(1A) of the CEA, 1944, the proceedings against the co-noticeeget abated.

And, therefore, the penalty imposed should be dropped as rule 26 of CER should be r/w Section 11A of the CEA, 1944.

The AR supported the order.

The Single Member Bench extracted the provisions of Section 11A(1A), (2) of the CEA, 1944 and observed -

4.1 It is seen that the proviso to sub-section (2) of Section 11A provides that if the main noticee has paid the duty in full together with interest and penalty under sub-section (1A), the proceedings in respect of such persons and such other persons to whom notices are served under sub-section (1) shall, without prejudice to the provisions of Section 9, 9A and 9AA be deemed to be conclusive as to the matters stated herein.

Inasmuch as since in the instant case, there are no proceedings under sub-section (1) of Section 11A against the appellant, the benefit of proviso to sub-section (2) of Section 11A is not available to the appellant, the CESTAT held.

The appeal was dismissed.

Missed the bus -

++ By Notification No.  8/2016-CENT  dated 1.3.2016, the Central Excise Rules were amended to add a proviso after Rule 26(1):

Provided that where any proceeding for the person liable to pay duty have been concluded under clause (a) or clause (d) of sub-section (1) of section 11AC of the Act in respect of duty, interest and penalty, all proceedings in respect of penalty against other persons, if any, in the said proceedings shall also be deemed to be concluded .

++ Also see CBEC Circular No. 11/2016-Customs., Dated: March 15, 2016

++ Can proceedings against co-noticees be deemed to be concluded if main assessee pays duty, interest and penalty [ DDT 2110 ]

In favour:

++ 2013-TIOL-1048-CESTAT-DEL 

++ 2016-TIOL-28-CESTAT-MUM , 2013-TIOL-768-CESTAT-MUM , 2016-TIOL-855-CESTAT-MUM [All Single Member Bench decisions]

Contra view –

++ 2013-TIOL-26-CESTAT-DEL [SMB]

++ 2015-TIOL-756-CESTAT-MUM [SMB]

(See 2017-TIOL-2453-CESTAT-MUM)


POST YOUR COMMENTS