News Update

IGST Refund for July month - Rs 132 Cr sanctioned in 10 days out of Rs 753 Cr, says CBEC ChairpersonGST - Revenue Secretary favours overhauling of rate structureMumbai Customs clears pendency of over 1 lakh claims and disburses drawback payment of Rs 7500 CrorePM inaugurates RO-RO ferry service between Ghogha & Dahej in GujaratWorld Economic Forum says Indian economy is on ascendancySovereign Gold Bond - Issue price to be Rs 2971/- per gram for subscription period Oct 23-25RBI insists on bank accounts being linked to AadhaarNo proposal to change method of calculating ceiling prices of scheduled drugs: GovtGovt clarifies it fixes prices of only about 17% of total drugs being sold in marketSolicitor General Ranjit Kumar puts in his papersFormer President Pranab Mukherjee loses his 86-yr-old brother; to attend last rites at BolpurChidambaram raps EC for not announcing Gujarat election datesST - Errors in CESTAT order - Perplexing that instead of setting out paragraph from apex court order against assessee, Tribunal order in favour of assessee reproduced - non-application of mind: High CourtSuspension of Reverse Charge - Side EffectAnti-dumping duty on Soda Ash imported from China, Pakistan and Iran to continue till decision of Gujarat HC - Rescinding Notification to remain in suspensionImports and Exports to Democratic People’s Republic of Korea - Paragraph 2.17 of the FTP 2015-2020 updated to account for UNSC ResolutionsI-T - Rent received for permitting 'hoarding' inside vacant premises of a housing society, are equally eligible annual letting value, so as to claim Section 24 deduction: ITATST – Entire exercise is revenue neutral since service tax which was payable was available as a CENVAT Credit to the appellant themselves instantly after making the payment of service tax: CESTATCX - Soap noodles was sold by HLL to companies against form 'C' who manufactured branded soap - Rule 8 of CE Valuation Rules, 2000 can be resorted to only when transaction is not of sale: CESTATTaliban-sponsored suicide bombers kill 40 soldiers in Kandhar provinceGSTN makes available offline utility for GSTR-3BGST - 2.5% CGST rate notified for intra-State supply of food preparations in unit containers meant for free-distribution to weaker sections + notifies documents to be produced for deemed exports benefitsWhite House launches Signature Campaign to mobilise support for Trump-led tax reformGST - Is it going to be costly perestroika for BJP?Younger generations to face more inequality in old age than present retirees: OECDPower Exchange - Only 4% of about 3750 MU per day generation being tradedTIOL wishes All Netizens a very Happy DiwaliFrench Parliament passes controversial anti-terror law empowering authorities to shut places of worship and restrict freedom of movementGST - CBEC clarifies on movement of goods within State and from one to another on approval basis + also notifies officers empowered to accept or reject application for GST PractitionerLinking Aadhaar with UAN - EPFO launches service for speedy servicesPM interacts with 380 Directors & Dy Secretaries in Central Govt; advises them to break silos with innovative ways
 
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