News Update

I-T - Merely mentioning income in P&L a/c and in Balance sheet does not absolve assessee from disclosing such income in returns: HCE-Way Bill - Clarification sought on movement of goods from dry to sea portsGST exemption granted to skill development, start-ups and tourismGST - Tax sops only through budgetary support: MoSRailways to go for GPS-based mapping of assetsParliament passes Payment of Gratuity Amendment Bill, 2018Govt to promote 12 Services as 'Champion Services' for exportsGST - Inclusion of Petrol and diesel under GST – It is for GST council to take a call - Petition dismissed: HCAadhaar chief to make detailed presentation before Apex CourtEnforcement Directorate raids its own officers in Ponzi Scam case in ChandigarhIf meat of the matter is ignored, justice is a distant dream (See 'TOG Insight' in duty imposed on imports of ‘Resorcinol’ from China PR & Japan and on ‘Monoisopropylamine’ from China PRSC says NO to removal of Bombay HC stay on Reliance Communication assets saleGST - Data Analytics turning out to be most potent anti-evasion tool!EU digital economy taxation proposal (See 'TII Edit')Sops for N-E Industrial Development capped at Rs 200 Cr per unitNational Health Mission - Rs 85200 Cr budgetary support till 2020I-T - Merely because a delinquent has managed to escape punishment, will not safeguard other similarly-placed wrong-doers from prosecution or penalty: ITATSSO - One Establishment, Two registrations, many issuesCX - Without a re-classification for assessment, there is no scope for denying CENVAT credit on inputs that find use in manufacture: CESTATUnion Cabinet gives nod to Rs 3000 Crore N-E Industrial Development Scheme + amendment to India-Qatar DTAA + amendment in Surrogacy Bill, 2016 + continuation of National Health Mission
Prosecution - Omission of a procedural rule for availing credit cannot, in any manner, affect charge of duty evasion: SC

By TIOL News Service

NEW DELHI, SEP 13, 2017: A Complaint dated 4th August, 1987 was filed by the appellant in his capacity as Superintendent, Central Excise, Ahmedabad alleging commission of offence mentioned in the complaint.

On 20th May, 1994, Rule 56A [Proforma Credit] was omitted by a notification. On that basis, the respondent filed an application for discharge.

The application was rejected and charge was framed by the trial Magistrate as follows :

"A charge is framed against the accused for the offence punishable under Section 9 of Central Excises & Salt Act, 1944 read with violation of Rule 52(A), 56(A), 173(G), 9(2) of Central Excise Rules and Rule 173(Q) read with Section 11(A) of the Central Excises & Salt Act, 1944."

The respondent moved the High Court by way of a revision petition and which was allowed.

It was held by the High Court that since Rule 56A was omitted without prescribing any saving clause, proceedings could not continue.

It was also observed that omission of the provision was not at par with repeal and Section 6 of the General Clauses Act, 1897 did not apply to repeal of a rule. [Rayala Corporation (P) Ltd. - 2002-TIOL-295-SC-FERA-LB and Kolhapur Cane Sugar Works Ltd. - 2002-TIOL-188-SC-CX-CB relied upon]

Against this order dated 17th October, 2015 of the High Court of Gujarat, an appeal has been preferred before the Supreme Court.

The Solicitor General submitted that the view taken by the High Court is erroneous. Inasmuch as the charge against the respondent was of evasion of excise duty under Section 9(1)(b) which remains unamended; that the evasion was on account of the respondent having taken credit without following the procedure under Rule 56A; that by omission of the said Rule, the charge did not suffer from any legal infirmity; that Section 6 of the General Clauses Act applied to omission which was also repeal. It was also submitted that retrospective amendment has been made to the Act by the Finance Act, 2001 [section 38A refers] making it clear that actions taken under a rule will not lapse even if the rule is omitted and the Explanation applied only to future action and not to continuing action. [Fibre Boards Pvt. Ltd. Bangalore - 2015-TIOL-178-SC-IT , Shree Bhagwati Steel Rolling Mills - 2015-TIOL-283-SC-CX relied upon.]

It is also emphasised that penalty for wrongly taking credit was upheld by the Tribunal in Reliance Industries Ltd. versus CCE Order no. 1358-59/94-WRB dated 17 August 1994, and which order had attained finality.

The respondent supported the order of the High Court.

After considering the submissions made, the Supreme Court observed -

"6. … In our view, the matter can be decided on a short point. The charge against the respondent is of evasion of duty. The ingredient of the offence is the evasion. The omission of a procedural rule for availing the credit cannot in any manner affect the said charge. The prosecution cannot be deprived of opportunity to prove evasion which by itself is an offence. In this view of the matter, there was no justification for the High Court to quash the charge merely on the ground of Rule 56A having been omitted."

The appeal was allowed by setting aside the order of the High Court and restoring the order of the trial court.

(See 2017-TIOL-344-SC-CX)