SIGN IN SUBSCRIBE

News Update

Maneka Gandhi declares assets worth Rs 97 Cr and files nomination papers from SultanpurGlobal Debt & Fiscal Silhouette rising! Do Elections contribute to fiscal slippages?ISRO study reveals possibility of water ice in polar cratersGST - Statutory requirement to carry the necessary documents should not be made redundant - Mistake committed by appellant is not extending e-way bill after the expiry, despite such liberty being granted under the Rules attracts penalty: HCBiden says migration has been good for US economyGST - Tax paid under wrong head of IGST instead of CGST/SGST - 'Relevant Date' for refund would be the date when tax is paid under the correct head: HCUS says NO to Rafah operation unless humanitarian plan is in place + Colombia snaps off ties with IsraelGST - Petitioner was given no opportunity to object to retrospective cancellation of registration - Order is also bereft of any details: HCMay Day protests in Paris & Istanbul; hundreds arrestedGST - Proper officer should have at least considered the reply on merits before forming an opinion - Ex facie, proper officer has not applied his mind: HCSaudi fitness instructor jailed for social media post - Amnesty International seeks releaseGST - A Rs.17.90 crores demand confirmed on Kendriya Bhandar by observing that reply is insufficient - Non-application of mind is clearly written all over the order: HCDelhi HC orders DGCA to deregister GO First’s aircraftGST - Neither the SCN nor the order spell the reasons for retrospective cancellation of registration, therefore, they are set aside: HCIndia successfully tests SMART anti-submarine missile-assisted torpedo systemST - Appellant was performing statutory functions as mandated by EPF & MP Act, and the Constitution of India, as per Board's Circular 96/7/2007-ST , services provided under Statutory obligations are not taxable: CESTATKiller heatwave kills hundreds of thousands of fish in Southern VietnamI-T - Scrutiny assessment order cannot be assailed where assessee confuses it with order passed pursuant to invocation of revisionary power u/s 263: HCHong Kong struck by close to 1000 lightningI-T - Assessment order invalidated where passed in rushed manner to avoid being hit by impending end of limitation period: HCColumbia Univ campus turns into ‘American Gaza’ - Pro-Palestinian students & counter-protesters clashI-T - Additions framed on account of bogus purchases merits being restricted to profit element embedded therein, where AO has not doubted sales made out of such purchases: HCIndia to host prestigious 46th Antarctic Treaty Consultative MeetingI-T - Miscellaneous Application before ITAT delayed by 1279 days without any just causes or bona fide; no relief for assessee: HCAdani Port & SEZ secures AAA RatingI-T - Assessee is eligible for deduction u/s 54EC on account of investment made in REC Bonds, provided both investments were made within period of six months as prescribed u/s 54EC: ITATNominations for Padma Awards 2025 beginsI-T - PCIT cannot invoke revisionary jurisdiction u/s 263 when there is no case of lack of enquiry or adequate enquiry on part of AO: ITATMissile-Assisted Release of Torpedo system successfully flight-tested by DRDOI-T - If purchases & corresponding sales were duly matched, it cannot be said that same were made out of disclosed sources of income: ITATViksit Bharat @2047: Taxes form the BedrockI-T - Reopening of assessment is invalid as while recording reasons for reopening of assessment, AO has not thoroughly examined materials available in his own record : ITAT
 
CX - Duty liability computed based on published article under bonafide belief that it is correct interpretation of law - demand sustainable for normal period: CESTAT

By TIOL News Service

NEW DELHI, MAR 27, 2017: THESE are Revenue appeals directed against the Order-in-Appeal which was in the context of the o-in-o confirming the total duty demand of Rs.28.35 lakhs, imposed penalties and ordered confiscation of seized goods but allowed to be redeemed on payment of redemption fine of Rs.25 lakhs.

After considering the submissions made by both sides, the Bench made the following observations -

+ Out of the total demand of Rs.28,35,468/-, an amount of Rs.16,59,090/- pertains to the period 08.01.2005 to 25.01.2007 and which has arisen on account of the wrong calculation of the duty liability on the basis of MRP assessment u/s 4A of the CEA, 1944. Inasmuch as pharmaceuticals products were included for assessment on MRP basis w.e.f 08.01.2005.

+ The explanation offered by the respondents is that they calculated the duty liability based on an article appearing in Excise Law Times with the bonafide belief that it is correct.

+ The Commissioner (Appeals) has taken the view that as the amount has arisen on account of such wrong calculation, demand can be sustained only within the normal period of time limit. Accordingly, he has directed the Original Adjudicating authority to re-quantify demand and confirm it for the period July 2006 to 25.01.2007.

+ The view adopted by the Commissioner (Appeals) cannot be faulted. There is nothing on record, based on which Revenue has alleged suppression on the part of the respondent. Accordingly, we uphold the demand falling within the normal time limit and vacate the remaining portion of demand. Penalty imposable under Section 11AC is also set aside.

+ Demand to the extent of Rs.7,74,558/- has been raised in respect of the product "Noophin Injection". Revenue has alleged that such injections were cleared with MRP of Rs.15/- by the respondents and not at the MRP of Rs.7.2 as declared in the invoices issued by the respondent. The basis for allegation of increased MRP is an investigation report sent by the Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise, Malenadu Division, Chennai. Respondent has raised serious objection to the basis for enhancing of MRP.

+ Increased MRP of Noophin injection has been alleged by the Revenue on the basis of investigation carried out in respect of New Pharmaceutical product in Karnataka. However, such investigation report has not been shared with the respondent during the course of the adjudicating proceedings. The concerned witness has also been not made available for examination by the respondents. In view of above, we find no reasons to interfere with findings of Commissioner (Appeals) setting aside this demand.

+ Since, the differential duty demand has arisen on account of wrong calculation, consequently, the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) is fully justified in setting aside the confiscation and hence upheld.

The appeals were disposed of.

The denovo proceedings were directed to be completed within a period of three months.

(See 2017-TIOL-1005-CESTAT-DEL)


POST YOUR COMMENTS
   

TIOL Tube Latest

TIOL Tube
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.

TOP NEWS

AR not Afar by SK Rahman

VISION 360



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

TII LATEST

TIOLCORPLAWS LATEST