NCLAT: Consideration of Debt Restructuring by Lenders Doesn’t Bar Member from Initiating Proceedings  ||  Delhi High Court: In Matters of Medical Evaluation, Courts Should Exercise Restraint  ||  Delhi HC: Any Person in India Has Right to Legally Import Goods from Abroad and Sell the Same  ||  Delhi HC: Waiver to Section 12(5) of Arbitration Act to be Given Once Tribunal is Constituted  ||  Supreme Court Has Asked States to Regularise Existing Court Managers  ||  SC: Union & States to Create Special POSCO Courts on Top Priority  ||  SC Upholds Authority of CERC to Award Compensation for Delays  ||  SC: Arbitral Tribunal Has Discretion to Include in Sum Awarded, Interest at Rate as it Deems Reasonab  ||  SC: Cannot Use Article 142 to Frame Guidelines on Judicial Recusal  ||  SC: Satisfaction Recorder in One EP Won’t Affect Subsequent EPs for Future Breaches    

Surya Life Science Limited and Ors. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Bharuch - (Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal) (14 Aug 2018)

Deemed exports cannot be clubbed for the purpose of calculation of clearances in DTA

MANU/CS/0072/2018

Excise

Present appeals have been filed by Surya Life Sciences Limited and its director against confirmation of demand of duty and imposition of penalties. Learned Counsel for the Appellant pointed out that the Appellant is 100% EOU. A case was booked against the Appellant for exceeding the limit of their DTA clearance. He argued that the entire demand is based on ER-II returns submitted by the Appellant and the entire demand is raised by invoking extended period of limitation. In these circumstances, he argued that extended period of limitation cannot be invoked.

In terms of decision of the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Anita Synthetics Pvt. Limited, deemed exports cannot be clubbed for the purpose of calculation of clearances in DTA and thus, the appeal on this count is allowed. A perusal of the show cause notice shows that, the entire data for issue of show cause notice has been derived from the returns filed by the assessee. In the circumstances, the appellant has disclosed the entire clearances to the Revenue therefore, the charge of suppression of facts or misdeclaration cannot be invoked against the Appellant. It is a failure on the part of the Revenue to detect the mistake of the Appellant.

Regarding the need of invocation of extended period of limitation in the cases where the B-17 Bond is executed is concerned, the matter has been clarified by the Tribunal in the case of Emcure Pharmaceuticals Limited. Therefore, demand is not sustainable on limitation. Since, the demand is not sustainable, the penalties imposed on the Appellant and its Director are also set-aside. Appeals allowed.

Relevant : Commissioner of Central Excise and Customs vs. Anita Synthetics (P.) Ltd. MANU/GJ/1027/2013

Tags : DEMAND   CONFIRMATION   VALIDITY  

Share :        

Disclaimer | Copyright 2025 - All Rights Reserved