sitemapHome | Registration | Job Portal for CA's | Expert Exchange | Currency Converter | Post Matrimonial Ads | Post Property Ads
News shortcuts: From the Courts | News Headlines | VAT (Value Added Tax) | Placements & Empanelment | Various Acts & Rules | Latest Circulars | New Forms | Forex | Auditing | Direct Tax | Customs and Excise | ICAI | Corporate Law | Markets | Students | General | Mergers and Acquisitions | Continuing Prof. Edu. | Budget Extravaganza | Transfer Pricing | GST - Goods and Services Tax
Latest Expert Exchange
From the Courts »
 M/s. Guajarat Guardian Ltd, 4-7/C, DDA Shopping Centre, New Friends Colony, New Delhi vs DCIT, Circle-12(1), (Now Circle-10(2), CR Building, IP Estate, New Delhi
 ACIT, Circle 1 Noida 201 301 vs M/s Jubilant Enpro P Ltd. Plot No.1-A Sector 16 A Noida 201 301
 Priyatam Plaschem Pvt. Ltd vs. ITO (ITAT Delhi)
 Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Mumbai Benches, Mumbai Consolidated Cause List Of Saj Ma/ Pronouncement For Friday 17.08.20 18
  PCIT vs. Associated Cables Pvt. Ltd (Bombay High Court)
 Sh. Ram Niwas H.No.A-26, Sanjay Gram Opp. Sector 14 Gurgaon 122 002, Haryana vs ITO, Ward 2(1) Gurgaon
 PCIT vs. Associated Cables Pvt. Ltd (Bombay High Court)
 Sudha Garg R-16/369, Vasundara Ghaziabad vs ITO Ward-2(3) Ghaziabad
 ACIT, Circle-61(1), New Delhi vs Urbane The Design Workshop, 5, South Appts MIS Flats, 1st Floor, Sri Aurobindo Marg,
 Loesche India Pvt. Ltd., M-38/1, Intl. Business Centre, Middle Circle, Connaught Place, New Delhi. vs Addl. CIT, Range-15,New Delhi.
 M/s. Mckinsey Knowledge Centre India Pvt. Ltd. vs. Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Delhi 6

Regarding Reduction of Government litigation - providing monetary limits for filing appeals by the Department before CESTAT/High Courts and Supreme court
June, 14th 2013

F.No.390/Misc./163/2010-JC

Ministry of Finance

Department of Revenue

Central Board of Excise & Customs

*****

New Delhi 3rd June, 2013

 

INSTRUCTION

To,

 

1.   All Chief Commissioners and Directors General under the Central Board of Excise and Customs.

2.   Chief Commissioner (AR), Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal.

3.   All Commissioners of Customs/Central Excise/Service Tax/All Authorised Representatives, CESTAT/Commissioner, Directorate of Legal Affairs.

4.   <webmaster.cbec@icegate.gov.in>

Sub:-                Reduction of Government litigation - providing monetary limits for filing appeals by the Department before CESTAT/High Courts and Supreme court - Regarding

 

I am directed to refer to Instruction of even number dated 17.8.2011 on the captioned subject.

Reference has been received regarding the application of the threshold limit prescribed vide Instruction ibid to cases where either redemption fine alone is in dispute or both redemption fine and penalty are in dispute. For example, in one case the Tribunal confirmed the duty but set aside the penalty of Rs. 5 lakhs and redemption fine of Rs. 15 lakhs imposed by the adjudicating authority. As the Instruction ibid did not specifically mention about redemption fine a clarification has been sought whether the word “penalty” mentioned in para 2 of the Instruction ibid would include redemption fine or otherwise.

The matter has been examined. Redemption fine is an option in the hand of the owner of goods to redeem goods confiscated by the department for violation of any provisions of the Customs Act.  On the other hand, penalty is imposed on any person who violates the provisions of the Customs Act   while importing or exporting the goods out of India. Therefore, the nature and scope of penalty is different from that of the redemption fine. While penalty is in persona, redemption fine is on goods. However, both redemption fine and penalty are imposed for violations of the statutory provisions. Therefore, even though redemption fine cannot be said to be covered under the word ‘penalty’ the treatment given to both  redemption fine and penalty is required to be identical and hence, redemption fine and penalty would need to be clubbed to decide the applicability of threshold limit prescribed.

-2-

Accordingly, it is clarified that if the imposition of redemption fine alone is the subject matter of dispute, and if such redemption fine exceeds the monetary limits prescribed, then the matter could be litigated further in Courts and Tribunal.  Further, if both the amount of redemption fine and penalty are in dispute and if such redemption fine and penalty is in dispute, taken together, exceed the prescribed monetary limit then the matter should be litigated further.

Instruction ibid stands suitably modified.

This issues with the approval of Chairperson (CBEC).

 

 

 (Sunil K. Sinha)

Director (JC)

 

 

 

Home | About Us | Terms and Conditions | Contact Us
Copyright 2018 CAinINDIA All Right Reserved.
Designed and Developed by Binarysoft Technologies Pvt. Ltd.
SEO Services SEO LLC e-boost Search Engine Optimization Services Internet Marketing Services Website Placement Services On-site Webs

Transfer Pricing | International Taxation | Business Consulting | Corporate Compliance and Consulting | Assurance and Risk Advisory | Indirect Taxes | Direct Taxes | Transaction Advisory | Regular Compliance and Reporting | Tax Assessments | International Taxation Advisory | Capital Structuring | Withholding tax advisory | Expatriate Tax Reporting | Litigation | Badges | Club Badges | Seals | Military Insignias | Emblems | Family Crest | Software Development India | Software Development Company | SEO Company | Web Application Development | MLM Software | MLM Solutions