Just a moment...
Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether interest and equal penalty were sustainable on differential duty paid for inputs cleared as such to a sister concern, where the duty had been paid after departmental objection and the clearance was revenue neutral.
Analysis: The clearance of inputs as such was held to be governed by the law settled in favour of the assessee, under which reversal of the credit taken on those inputs was sufficient and reassessment on the basis of Section 4 was not warranted. In such a situation, where no duty was lawfully payable in the first instance, the consequential levy of interest and penalty could not survive. The Tribunal also accepted the revenue-neutral character of the transaction, since any duty paid by the appellant would have been available as credit to the sister concern. The doctrine of election was held inapplicable because the assessee was entitled to contest the interest and penalty even after paying duty under departmental persuasion.
Conclusion: The demand of interest and the imposition of equal penalty were unsustainable and were set aside in favour of the assessee.
Ratio Decidendi: Where duty is not legally exigible on cleared inputs and the transaction is revenue neutral, interest and penalty cannot be imposed merely because the assessee paid differential duty after departmental objection.