News Update

SC holds influencers, celebrities equally accountable for misleading adsGST - Appellate Authority has not noticed the provisions of Section 12 of the Limitation Act, 1963 which mandates that the day on which the judgment complained of was pronounced, is also to be excluded: HCKejriwal’s judicial custody extended till May 20GST - If the Proper Officer was of the view that the reply filed was insufficient, he could have sought more clarification - Without providing any such opportunity, impugned order could not have been passed - Matter remanded: HCGST - Notice requiring petitioner to furnish additional information/clarification does not mention that petitioner had to appear for personal hearing - Since no opportunity of personal hearing was given, order is unsustainable: HCGST - For the purposes of DNB and FNB courses, petitioner clearly falls within the scope of an educational institution imparting education to students enrolled with it as a part of a curriculum - Services exempted: HCGST - Candidates appearing for the screening tests are not students of the petitioner - Petitioner's claim of exemption on such examination fees is unmerited: HCGST - NEET examinations are in the nature of an entrance examination - Petitioner would be entitled to the benefit of an exemption by virtue of Serial No.66(aa) of the 2017 Notification, which came into effect on 25.01.2018: HCBrisk voting reported from all 96 LS seats; PM casts vote in AhmedabadIndia calls back half of troops stationed at MaldivesIndia-Australia DTAA: Economic Statecraft through TaxRBI alerts against misuse of banking channels for facilitating illegal forex tradingTime Limit to file Appeal in GST Appellate TribunalEC censures Jagan Reddy & Chandrababu Naidu for MCC violationsFrance tells Xi Jinping EU needs protection from China’s cheap importsI-T- Addition cannot be made merely for reason that assessee got property transferred through registered sale without making payment to vendor: ITATI-T- Addition which is not based on the reasons for reopening is un-sustainable sans notice u/s 148 of the ACT: ITATOxygen valve malfunction delays launch of Boeing’s first crewed spacecraftFM administers Oath to Justice Sanjaya Kumar Mishra as first President of GST TribunalGhana agrees to activate UPI links in 6 monthsED seizes about 20 kg gold from locker of a cyber scammer in Haryana
 
CX - Duty demand cannot be made jointly and severally - since units have separate existence, each one will be entitled to the benefit of SSI exemption separately: CESTAT

 

By TIOL News Service

NEW DELHI, JUNE 19, 2018: PURSUANT to investigation, the Department concluded that both M/s TAPL as well as M/s 3D have-

(i) Imported various goods bearing their brand name on which the MRP was not marked. Such goods, after importation were affixed with MRP sticker and sold in the local market;

(ii) Some consignments were imported on which MRP stickers were already affixed but post importation new MRP stickers were affixed and goods were sold in the local market;

(iii) Goods were procured from indigenous manufacturers, the MRP was changed and such goods were also sold at the enhanced MRP;

The goods imported and traded by M/s TAPL as well as M/s 3D during the impugned period are covered under Third Schedule of the CEA.

It is, therefore, the allegation of Revenue that the activity of changing the MRP/ affixing MRP stickers in their godown will fall within the deeming provision of 'manufacture' in Section 2(f)(iii) and consequently, Central Excise duty is required to be discharged in terms of Section 4A of the CEA, 1944.

The order-in-original confirmed the CE duty demand made in the SCDN.

Incidentally, goods imported through M/s TAPL as well as M/s 3D have been separately tabulated by the Revenue and demand was also tabulated on that basis but the value of clearances was finally clubbed for purposes of determining the entitlement to SSI exemption. So also, the CE duty has been demanded jointly and severally against both the appellants M/s TAPL & M/s 3D.

The appellants are before the CESTAT.

It is pertinent to note that the appellants are not challenging the stand taken by Revenue that the activity of fixing MRP stickers will amount to manufacture in terms of Section 2(f)(iii) and Central Excise duty will be liable to be paid.

Nonetheless, they submit that demand cannot be made jointly and severally from two persons as has been held by the Tribunal in the case of Futura Travels Ltd. -  2017-TIOL-4206-CESTAT-DEL. So also, as both M/s TAPL as well as M/s 3D have separate existence in the eyes of law, the value of clearances of the two cannot be clubbed and both will be separately entitled to the SSI exemption notification; that CVD paid at the time of import should be allowed as CENVAT credit. It has also been argued that no evidence has been disclosed in the show cause notice for such activity undertaken prior to June 2012.

The Bench considered the submissions and after perusing the voluminous records observed –

++ From the appeal record, we find that both TAPL as well as 3D have separate existence in the eyes of law. The former is a Private Limited company whereas the latter is a Partnership firm. The goods were imported under both names and have also been sold under both names, inspite of the fact that the goods were mixed up at the godown and have been sold on the basis of price list circulated by TAPL.

++ It is settled position of law that in the absence of mutuality of interest and financial flow back from one firm to another, clubbing of clearances is not permissible merely on the ground that both firms are in the common premises and affairs of all firm are looked after by one person.

++ We are of the view that since TAPL as well as 3D have separate existence and have separate registration for VAT, Income Tax etc., each one will be entitled to the benefit of SSI exemption separately.

++ It is well settled that demand cannot be made jointly and severally. The demand can only be made from that entity which has manufactured the goods in question.

While upholding the view that the activity carried out by TAPL as well as 3D will amount to 'manufacture' as per Section 2(f)(iii) of the Act and hence, Central Excise duty is required to be paid on the basis of MRP but such Excise duty payable is required to be computed after extending the benefit of SSI exemption separately to TAPL as well as 3D; that the demand made jointly and severally from two parties cannot be upheld but has to be computed separately, the CESTAT remanded the matter to the adjudicating authority.

(See 2018-TIOL-1879-CESTAT-DEL)


POST YOUR COMMENTS
   

TIOL Tube Latest

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.


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