75th Founding Day Lecture Meeting on “India@2030” Know More

April 2014

2014 (33) STR 153 (Guj) Commissioner of Central Excise & Customs vs. Ashish Anand & Co.

By Puloma Dalal, Jayesh Gogri, Mandar Telang Chartered Accountants
Reading Time 1 mins
fiogf49gjkf0d
No powers to reduce penalty below minimum prescribed limit by invoking section 80 of the Finance Act, 1994.

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) and CESTAT 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 minimum prescribed 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.

Download PDF

You May Also Like

2014 (33) STR 142 (All) K. Amand Caterers vs. Union of India

2014 (33) STR 357 (Kar) United Telecom Limited vs. CCEx, Bangalore –I