Subscription   Feedback   New User   Login      
Tax Management India .com
TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Forum Articles Highlights TMI Notes SMS News What's New Calendar Imp. Links Database More...
Extracts
Home List
← Previous Next →

Commissioner of Central Excise, Customs & Service Tax, Bhubaneshwar-I Versus M/s. Vedanta Aluminium Limited & Ors.

Maintainability - Whether the writ petition is maintainable - Offices of the writ petitioner is situated in Orissa and major part of the cause of action arose outside the jurisdiction of the Calcutta High Court - Held that:- the Additional Bench of the Commission at Kolkata, under the statutory rules, having jurisdiction over the entire eastern zone, which includes the State of Orissa, after hearing, had passed the order. The appellant had participated in the proceedings. Hence, keeping Article .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

case settled,” and “before adjudication” , instead of filing a reply to the notice and having the case adjudicated, filed applications before the Commission for settlement. So the respondents opted for settlement before the Commission, - a statutory forum created for the said purpose. Thus having opted for settlement and having accepted the amount of excise duty payable by them, the respondents cannot now turn back and challenge the penalty imposed by filing a writ petition because it would mean .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

her wholly or in part from the imposition of any penalty and fine” (emphasis supplied), the order of penalty cannot be severed from the order of prosecution. It is a composite order. The words “and also” make the order of prosecution and penalty inseverable. Since an order passed by the Commission is an agreement in a statutory form, the respondents, having been granted immunity from prosecution, cannot challenge the imposition of penalty only. Under the statute the order of penalty is not segre .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

cepted only in part.”

Whether payment made pursuant to an order passed by the Commission can be conditional - Held that:- After order was passed by the Settlement Commission, the respondents had deposited the penalty, without prejudice to their rights available under the law. In our view since the respondents had filed applications for settlement admitting the allegations in the notice and having accepted immunity from prosecution and as the order is inseparable, such reservation of .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

With CAN No. 8693 of 2015 - Dated:- 1-10-2015 - SOUMITRA PAL AND MIR DARA SHEKO, JJ For the Petitioner : Mr. R. Bharadwaj, Advocate, Mr. K.K. Maity, Advocate. For the Respondent : Mr. J.P. Khaitan, Senior Advocate, Mr. Agnibesh Sengupta, Advocate, Mr. Arunava Deb, Advocate. ORDER SOUMITRA PAL, J.:- This appeal, preferred by the Commissioner of Central Excise, Customs and Services Tax, Bhubaneshwar-I, Commissionerate, is directed against the judgment dated 8th May, 2014 passed in W.P. 20905 (W) o .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ional Bench, Kolkata, is set aside to the extent it purports to levy penalty on the petitioners. The concerned respondents shall forthwith, and in any case within two months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order, refund the penalty amount paid by and/or realized from the respective writ petitioners. (page 781 of the stay application). In this appeal the appellant has challenged the said judgment on principally on two grounds, - that this High Court had no jurisdiction to ent .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

to the writ jurisdiction of this High Court. On merits, relying on the grounds of appeal, it was submitted that the impugned judgment proceeds as if it is an appeal from an order passed in adjudication. The question of evasion of duty was not the issue. Though the Settlement Commission did not go into the issue whether duty was leviable or not, the total approach of the learned Single Judge was that there was no liability to pay duty. As the same was accepted by the writ petitioner, the Commiss .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

rit petition, instead of applying for settlement, the respondents/writ petitioners should have opted for adjudication before the Central Excise Officer who determines the amount of excise duty. Since under the Central Excise Act, 1944 (for short the Act ), there is a difference between adjudication and settlement, whereas in the former the Central Excise Officer, who adjudicates, has no jurisdiction to grant immunity from prosecution, - a power enjoyed by the Commission, and as the petitioner un .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

cannot be accepted conditionally as it would make section 32K otiose. In the facts and circumstances as the respondents in their applications had admitted the allegations in the show cause notice, the learned Judge erred in holding that the allegations of fraud, suppression and misstatement are bald, totally vague and devoid of any particulars. In short, submission was that as it is evident from the notice that the respondents failed to file return and did not pay duty in time and as instead of .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

under:- (1) Sun Pharmaceutical Industries Limited v. The Union of India & Others: 2007-(218)-ELT-0495-BOM, (2) Brindavan Beverages Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner of C. Ex., Meerut: 2009-(237)-ELT-0658-DEL and (3) the unreported judgment delivered on 6th July, 2015 in MAT 1856 of 2014 (Venky Hi-Tech Ispat Ltd. v. Customs and Central Excise Settlement Commission). Mr. J.P. Khaitan, learned senior advocate, on the point of maintainability submitted that since the Additional Bench of the Commission, .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

g to him it is a case of valuation dispute and not of clandestine removal of goods. There was no motive to evade duty. Moreover, as section 32E does not speak of evasion of duty and when under section 32F the applicant makes a true and full disclosure, the Commission has to enquire and decide the matter. Submission was though a settlement under the Act is a package, however in appropriate cases Courts can examine the decision making process. If it is found that order passed is contrary to the pr .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

relied on the annual report of the appellants as it was not part of the records. As immunity from prosecution is a separate limb in the order of the Commission and revenue neutrality is the basis of the judgment and the learned Single Judge has given adequate reasons for waiver of penalty, it need not be inferred with. Mr. Khaitan has relied on the following judgments in support of his submission which are as follows:- 1) Municipal Council, Ratlam v. Shri Vardichan: (1980) 4 SCC 162; 2) Jyotendr .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

y Glass Ltd. v. Union of India: 2005 (180) ELT 5 (Del.); 10) Commissioner of C. Ex., Pune v. Coca-Cola India Pvt. Ltd.: 2007 (213) ELT 490 (SC); 11) Viva Herba Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India: 2010(260) ELT 168 (Bom.); 12) Swasthik Tobacco Factory v. Cus. & C. Ex. Settlement Commission: 2012 (281) ELT 674 (Mad.) and 13) Nirlon Ltd. v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Mumbai: 2015 (320) ELT 22 (SC). The issues to be considered are i) Whether the writ petition is maintainable, ii) Whether the order .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

e Calcutta High Court. However, the Additional Bench of the Commission at Kolkata, under the statutory rules, having jurisdiction over the entire eastern zone, which includes the State of Orissa, after hearing, had passed the order. The appellant had participated in the proceedings. Hence, keeping Article 226(2) of the Constitution in mind, as a part of the cause of action had arisen within the territorial limits of the Calcutta High Court, the learned Single Judge was justified in holding that .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

not applicable as it was a judgment on a statutory appeal from CESTAT, whereas in the case in hand, the authorities had participated in the proceedings before the Commission at Kolkata which had passed the impugned order. So far as the merit of the case in concerned, evidently notice dated 11th October, 2010 was issued. Admittedly the respondents after receiving the said notice instead of giving reply within the time as stipulated therein, on 20th December, 2010 had filed applications under sect .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

oceedings, Commission recording its satisfaction and considering the facts and circumstances, settled the case under section 32F of the Act by passing an order, the relevant portion of which is set out hereinunder:- Central Excise duty: The Central Excise Duty in this case is settled at ­66,64,19,436. This amount has already been deposited by the applicant, the same is ordered to be appropriated by the Commissioner within 30 days from the date of receipt of this order. Interest: The applican .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

and to the coapplicants Shri Rajesh Mohata from penalty as is in excess of ­5,00,000 (Rupees five lakh only), Shri TPK Patro from penalty as is in excess of ­5,00,000 (Rupees five lakh only), Shri P.S Reddy from penalty as is in excess ­5,00,000 (Rupees five lakh only), and Shri Purushottam Kumar Choudhury) from penalty as is in excess of V5,00,000 (rupees five lakh only) under the provisions invoked in the SCN. The amounts of penalty should be paid within 15 days from the date of re .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

espondents had admitted the allegations in the show cause notice and had also accepted the duty demanded and the entire liability in the notice, can the penalty imposed by the Commission be challenged. The answer has to be in the negative for the reasons set out hereinafter. It is to be noted that settlement means an official agreement that ends an argument between two people . (Oxford Advanced Learners Dictionary). In the case in hand in view of the provisions in section 32E(1) of the Act, the .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

because it would mean arguing the case on merit which under section 33 of the Act can only be dealt with and decided by an adjudicating authority. Had there been adjudication and had duty liability been established, under section 11AC the respondents might have faced prosecution from which the Commission had granted immunity. Further as to whether the order directing imposition of penalty is severable or not, the answer can be found from the statute and the impugned judgment. Since section 32K .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

osition of penalty only. Under the statute the order of penalty is not segregable. As the order of penalty and prosecution cannot be segregated, either the applicant accepts the order in its entirety or the settlement fails. Admittedly a package, an order passed by the Commission, should be read as a whole. It is to be noted that the learned Judge even while holding penalty being segregable and unsustainable held It is true that ordinarily the settlement comes as a package and composite tax stat .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

passed by the Settlement Commission, as evident from the letters dated 17th October, 2011, the respondents had deposited the penalty, without prejudice to their rights available under the law. In our view since the respondents had filed applications for settlement admitting the allegations in the notice and having accepted immunity from prosecution and as the order is inseparable, such reservation of rights is unacceptable. It is against the scheme of the Act which shall make section 32K(2) otio .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

he duty demand proposed therein. The applicants are not raising the issue of time bar in the interests of settlement though majority of the demand is time barred. 57. The applicants submit that while they are admitting the entire liability as proposed in the show cause notice, the applicants pray to adjust the amount of ₹ 66,64,49,436 already deposited by them against the admitted duty liability. , (emphasis supplied) (page 598 of the stay application), - however, the learned Single Judge .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ce the respondents had admitted the allegations in the notice, the demand of duty and the entire liability proposed therein, the learned Single Judge erred in holding that the allegations are bald and vague and there was no suppression. Perusing the judgment under challenge, we find that the learned Single Judge had proceeded as if the Court was adjudicating matter and thus erred in passing the order setting aside the levy of penalty. So far as the judgments relied on behalf of the respondent ar .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

 

 

 

 

 

  ↓     Latest Happening     ↓  

TMI Note: Does ICDS apply to computation of Minimum Alternate Tax (MAT) u/s 115JB of the Act or Alternate Minimum Tax (AMT) u/s 115JC of the Act.

TMI Note: Where a term has not been defined under ICDS, nor under the Act, but has different interpretations given to it by the courts in tax cases, and in ICAI Accounting Standards, which interpretation would prevail while interpreting ICDS.

TMI Note: Whether the provisions of ICDS apply to a non-resident who claims the benefit of a double taxation avoidance agreement (DTAA).

TMI Note: In case any of the ICDS provisions is contrary to a circular or press release issued by the CBDT, which would prevail over the other.

TMI Note: ICDS-I requires disclosure of significant accounting policies and other ICDS requires specific disclosures. Where is the taxpayer required to make such disclosures specified in ICDS.

Notification: Income Computation and Disclosure Standards (ICDS) - New ICDS to be effective from AY 2017-18

Forum: Input credit of gst paid on urd

Notification: Seeks to exempt goods imported for organising FIFA under 17, world cup, 2017

Forum: Wrong quote of GSTIN no of buyer in GSTR-1

Forum: Getting upload error message.Cannot upload json file for GSTR1 even after using offline tool V 1.2..

Forum: Issue of Payment Voucher

Forum: filing of unaudited financial accounts

Forum: GST on Notional rent

Forum: need of extention of agm in case of non filing

News: RBI Reference Rate for US $

Highlight: GST - Detention of goods under transport - discrepancy in documents - the statutory provisions provide a mechanism for adjudication following detention of goods including for the provisional release thereof pending adjudication - HC

Highlight: Reassessment - first few paragraphs of the assessment order dealt with objections and disposed of accordingly - Unfortunately, the manner in which the AO has decided the issue is wholly unsustainable in law - HC

Highlight: Business expenditure u/s 37 - liquidated damage - breach of contract terms - Expenditure was not incurred for any purpose which is an offence or which is prohibited by law - cannot be disallowed - HC

Highlight: Valuation - inclusion of reimbursement of expenses - managing participation of clients in certain mela, fairs, promotional activities etc. - They are liable to service tax on the gross amount received - They cannot restrict their tax liability to only agency commission

Highlight: TDS liability - ITAT confirmed the liability - We do not see how it is possible for us to uphold the order of the Tribunal and when it purports to decide two Appeals of the Revenue by single paragraph conclusion - HC

Highlight: Reopening of assessment - sufficiency of material available with the AO to form a belief that income chargeable to tax had escaped assessment - bogus purchases - seller refused to respond - notice would not be interfered with - HC

Highlight: Exemption u/s 11 - education activities - transport and hostel facilities surplus cannot be considered as business income of the assessee society

News: Draft Notification for insertion of new rule 39A in the Income-tax Rules, 1962 – comments and suggestions-reg.

Highlight: Genuineness of labour wages expenses, embroidery charges, fabrication expenses etc. - getting work done through small workmen who do not have any permanent place of residence - disallowance of ad hoc expenditure deleted.

Highlight: Project import - Since the goods were never used for the purpose for which it was imported, the actual user condition has been violated - Redemption fine and penalty imposed.

Highlight: Penalty u/s 112 (a) - CHA - Lack of due diligence and failure to take more precautions can not, by itself, bring in penal consequences

Highlight: Import of services - GST - The fact that those services were received outside India will not change the fact that the services have been paid for by the beneficiary appellant, who is located in India. - Demand confirmed.

Notification: SEZ for IT/ITES at Madhurwada Village, Visakhapatnam District in the State of Andhra Pradesh - denotified.

Highlight: Merely because payment is received in Indian rupee, it cannot be said that payment against export has not been received in convertible foreign exchange.

Highlight: Merely vehicle numbers was not mentioned on the invoices cannot be the reason to deny Cenvat Credit

Highlight: Extension of time limit for submitting the declaration in FORM GST TRAN-1 under rule 120A of the Central Goods and Service Tax Rules, 2017 - Circular

Circular: Extension of time limit for submitting the declaration in FORM GST TRAN-1 under rule 120A of the Central Goods and Service Tax Rules, 2017

News: Auction for Sale (Re-issue) of Government Stocks

Article: TDS APPLICABILITY ON GOVERNMENT CONTRACTS UNDER GST (Under Section 51 of the CGST Act, 2017)

News: Manmohan takes potshots at note ban, 'hasty' rollout of GST

News: GST on petrol, diesel requires wider discussion: Nitish

Article: WHEN CAN ONE TAKE ITC FOR RCM CASES?

Notification: TDS liability under Section 51 of CGST, 2017 come into force w.e.f. 18-9-2017 - Persons liable to deduct TDS from payment made or credited to the supplier of taxable goods or services specified

Notification: Central Goods and Services Tax (Seventh Amendment) Rules, 2017

Notification: Seeks to extend the last date for filing the return in FORM GSTR-3B for the months of August to December, 2017

Circular: Filing of Special Leave Petition against Orders of Hon'ble High Courts staying Collection of Tax under GST- reg.

Highlight: Exemption u/s 54F - LTCCG - once entire net consideration is invested, the absence of completion certificate cannot be a ground to deny the benefit of deduction.

Highlight: Deduction u/s 10B - initial AY - Mere authorization to enable the Assessee to import material or export produce in the earlier date would not ipso facto tantamount to commencement of substantial activity of ‘manufacture’/’production’.

Circular: Sub:- Procedure to be followed for Import under DEEC/EPCG Scheme- reg.

News: RBI Reference Rate for US $

Article: INELIGIBLE INPUT TAX CREDIT UNDER GST REGIME

Article: MISTAKES IN DRAFTING

Article: All about E-way Bill under GST

Highlight: Provision for sick leave liability - based on the basis of notional figures - such notional liability cannot be allowed as deduction - section 43B(f) is not applicable.

Highlight: Penalty u/s 271(1)(c) - the amended provision of Explanation 5A made applicable w.r.e.f from 1.6.2007 cannot be pressed into service.



|| Home || Acts and Rules || Notifications || Circulars || Schedules || Tariff || Forms || Case Laws || Manuals ||

|| About us || Contact us || Disclaimer || Terms of Use || Privacy Policy || TMI Database || Members || Site Map ||

© Taxmanagementindia.com [A unit of MS Knowledge Processing Pvt. Ltd.] All rights reserved.

Go to Mobile Version