Subscribe to the Bombay Chartered Accountant Journal Subscribe Now!

February 2023

Service Tax

By Puloma Dalal | Jayesh Gogri | Mandar Telang
Chartered Accountants
Reading Time 6 mins

I. HIGH COURT

27 Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd vs. UOI [2022] 144 taxmann.com 200 (Bombay) Date of order: 15th September, 2022

The charging sections for the imposition of CVD and SAD or surcharge are section 90(1) of the Finance Act, 2000, section 3(1) and section 3A(1) of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975, respectively and not section 12 of the Customs Act, 1962. The Court held that section 3(6) and section 3A(4) of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 do not provide for any interest or penalty. Neither does section 90 of the Finance Act, 2000 provide for the same. Therefore, no interest or penalty can be levied on the portion of payment pertaining to a surcharge, CVD and SAD.

FACTS

The petitioner is engaged in the manufacture of vehicles in India and filed four applications before the settlement commission against four show cause notices demanding differential customs duty. The Orders passed by the Settlement Commission were challenged before the High Court. The High Court quashed these orders and directed to pass fresh orders. The respondents re-heard the matter and passed the orders confirming the earlier orders and imposing interest and penalties.

The petitioner contende

Read More
Download PDF

You May Also Like

Goods and Services Tax

REGULATORY REFERENCER