Thursday 15 May 2014

No powers to reduce penalty below minimum pre-scribed limit by invoking section 80 of the Finance Act, 1994.



CCE &C  vs. Ashish Anand  & Co (2014 (33) STR 153 (Guj))

Facts:
The short question under consideration was whether penalty   u/s.  76  of  the   Finance  Act,  1994  (the   Act) be  reduced   below  the  minimum   limit  prescribed   by invoking   section   80  of  the  Act.  The department argued that the Commissioner (Appeals) andCESTAT had no authority to reduce  the  penalty   as provided in the  law.

Held:
Applying   the  decision   of  the  Gujarat   High  Court  in Port  Officer  2010 (19) STR 641 (Guj), it was  observed that   section    80 of  the   Finance  Act,   1994  had  an overriding   effect   over  sections  76,  77, 78  and  79  of the  Act  (the  Act)  and  no penalty  was  imposable   in case of  reasonable   cause for  failure  to  comply   with laws  as provided   in respective   sections. The  authorities,  Commissioner   (Appeals)   and  CESTAT however, do  not  have  powers  to  levy penalty  below  minimumprescribed   limit  and  therefore,    it  was  held  that  penalty u/s. 76 could  not  be reduced  below  the  minimum prescribed   limit by  invoking   section   80  of  the  Act.

No comments:

Taxation of Intangible assets acquired through business restructuring.

1.     Background    1.1        When a company aims to acquire another company's business through amalgamation or demerger, assets or ...