TaxTMI Login
AI Drafter - (New and Powerful) ✕
Generate professional replies, appeals, opinions to Show Cause Notices, assessment orders, audit objections, and other legal communications using TaxTMI's AI Drafter.
Just a moment...
AI Drafter - (New and Powerful) ✕ Generate professional replies, appeals, opinions to Show Cause Notices, assessment orders, audit objections, and other legal communications using TaxTMI's AI Drafter.
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: (i) Whether, for working out the differential excise duty, the price charged to the alleged dummy companies had to be treated as cum-duty price and whether duty already payable was liable to be abated from that price. (ii) Whether the applicants were entitled to immunity from interest, penalty, confiscation and prosecution in settlement proceedings.
Issue (i): Whether, for working out the differential excise duty, the price charged to the alleged dummy companies had to be treated as cum-duty price and whether duty already payable was liable to be abated from that price.
Analysis: The applicants admitted the floating of dummy companies and the wrongful availing of 3% trade discount. The only surviving dispute was whether the differential value should be treated as cum-duty or ex-duty. The Bench followed the principle that the actual sale price, where duty forms part of the consideration and cannot be separately passed on, must be treated as cum-duty price, and the duty already payable must be abated from that price. The show cause notice itself had stated that the price at which the goods were sold to dealers, inclusive of trade discount and duty payable, was the normal price. On that basis, the computation made by the Commissioner (Investigation) was accepted.
Conclusion: The differential duty was to be computed on a cum-duty basis, and the duty liability was determined at Rs. 20,30,035.30.
Issue (ii): Whether the applicants were entitled to immunity from interest, penalty, confiscation and prosecution in settlement proceedings.
Analysis: The applicants had cooperated throughout, made full disclosure, and ultimately accepted the quantified duty liability. The liability related to earlier years, so interest under Section 11AB was held not attracted. Section 11AC was also held inapplicable as it operated prospectively. In view of cooperation and settlement, immunity from confiscation, penalty and prosecution was considered justified under the settlement provisions.
Conclusion: The applicants were granted immunity from interest, confiscation, penalty and prosecution, subject to the settlement order and statutory safeguards.
Final Conclusion: The application was settled by confirming the duty on a cum-duty basis while granting statutory immunities from interest, confiscation, penalty and prosecution, leaving only the balance duty payable within the time directed.
Ratio Decidendi: Where duty forms part of the consideration actually received for sale, the realized price must be treated as cum-duty price and the duty payable must be abated from that price for determining assessable value; in settlement proceedings, prospective penal provisions and post-liability interest provisions do not apply retrospectively to earlier periods.
TaxTMI 
