TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>SVLDR Scheme filing is procedural formality, not substantive requirement for Section 124 penalty relief</h1> <h3>M/s JPFL Films Private Limited, Jalan Jee Polytex Ltd., Kavita International Agency, Kuldeep Singh, DP Singh, R Knitfab, Perfect Designer, VK Kalra, Reliance Industries Limited, Kanpur Wool Industries, Swastik Trading Co., Apex Corporation and Mansa Traders Versus Commissioner of Central Excise, Ludhiana</h3> M/s JPFL Films Private Limited, Jalan Jee Polytex Ltd., Kavita International Agency, Kuldeep Singh, DP Singh, R Knitfab, Perfect Designer, VK Kalra, ... Issues involved:The judgment involves challenges to an impugned order regarding fraudulent availing of CENVAT credit without receiving goods, issuance of show-cause notice for recovery, penalty imposition on suppliers, settlement under Sabka Vishwas Legacy Dispute Resolution Scheme, and appellants' non-application for settlement.Summary:Issue 1: SVLDR Scheme Relief EligibilityThe appellants challenge the denial of relief under the SVLDR Scheme due to non-application, arguing that they are entitled to penalty relief as per Tribunal precedents and that the Department's stand on penalty imposition lacks consistency. They assert that penalty cannot be imposed on suppliers for fraudulent activities of the receiver and cite relevant case laws in support.Issue 2: Contradictory FindingsCounsel for certain appellants contends that the Commissioner's findings are contradictory, as goods were confirmed to have entered the ICC Check Post, yet the conclusion was made that only invoices were issued without goods transport. This inconsistency raises doubts on the imposition of penalties.Issue 3: SVLDR Scheme ProvisionsThe Department emphasizes the mandatory nature of filing declarations under the SVLDR Scheme, highlighting that relief is contingent upon fulfilling declaration requirements. Failure to submit declarations precludes appellants from claiming benefits under the Scheme, as clarified by CBIC FAQs.Issue 4: Merits of the CaseThe Department presents a strong case against the appellants, citing verification results at the ICC Check Post and implicating various entities in the alleged fraudulent activities. The Department argues that penalty imposition is justified under Rule 26 of Central Excise Rules, 2002, and relies on relevant case laws to support its stance.Issue 5: Scheme Relief and Procedural ComplianceThe Tribunal examines the provisions of the SVLDR Scheme and concludes that appellants are eligible for relief from penalties or late fees. The filing of declarations is viewed as a procedural formality, and failure to file should not impede the appellants' entitlement to relief, as supported by previous Tribunal decisions.Issue 6: Merits ReassessmentUpon reviewing the case merits, the Tribunal finds discrepancies in the Commissioner's conclusions, particularly regarding the lack of evidence against certain appellants and the imposition of penalties based on non-existent legal provisions. The Tribunal rules in favor of the appellants, allowing their appeals and questioning the validity of penalties imposed.Conclusion:The Tribunal rules in favor of the appellants, granting relief under the SVLDR Scheme and overturning the penalties imposed. The judgment highlights the importance of procedural compliance and consistency in legal interpretations, ultimately leading to the allowance of all appeals.
TaxTMI 