Latest Expert Exchange Queries
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) | Service Tax | Sales Tax | Placements & Empanelment | Various Acts & Rules | Latest Circulars | New Forms | Forex | Auditing | Direct Tax | Customs and Excise | ICAI | Corporate Law | Markets | Students | General | Indirect Tax | Mergers and Acquisitions | Continuing Prof. Edu. | Budget Extravaganza | Transfer Pricing
 
 
 
 
Popular Search: ACCOUNTING STANDARD :: due date for vat payment :: TAX RATES - GOODS TAXABLE @ 4% :: VAT RATES :: list of goods taxed at 4% :: empanelment :: Central Excise rule to resale the machines to a new company :: ARTICLES ON INPUT TAX CREDIT IN VAT :: cpt :: TDS :: ACCOUNTING STANDARDS :: articles on VAT and GST in India :: VAT Audit :: form 3cd :: ICAI offer Get Windows 7,Office 2010 in Rs.799 Taxes
 
 
From the Courts »
 Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax, Delhi-1 Vs. Amadeus India Pvt. Ltd.
  AAA Paper Marketing Ltd vs. ACIT (ITAT Lucknow)
 CIT vs. Mettler Toledo India Pvt. Ltd (Bombay High Court)
 B.A.Mohota Textiles Traders Pvt. Ltd vs. DCIT (Bombay High Court)
 Shrey Infradevelopers Pvt Ltd Vs. Commissioner Of Income Tax
 Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax Central-2 New Delhi Vs. Meeta Gutgutia Prop. M/s Ferns „N'? Petals
 Shrey Infradevelopers Pvt. Ltd Vs. Commissioner Of Income Tax
 South Asian Enterprises Ltd. & Anr. Vs. Commissioner Of Income Tax & Anr
 Crescent Construction Co vs. ACIT (ITAT Mumbai)
 AAA Paper Marketing Ltd vs. ACIT (ITAT Lucknow)
 Pioneer Overseas Corporation Usa (India Branch) Vs. Commissioner Of Income Tax (International Taxation)- 2 Delhi

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 2017 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