Case Law Details
Commissioner, Central Excise And Customs Vs Reliance Industries Ltd (Supreme Court of India)
This article discusses a significant Supreme Court ruling in the case of Commissioner, Central Excise And Customs vs Reliance Industries Ltd. The court examined the imposition of penalties on self-assessment returns for alleged suppression of facts. The analysis explores whether the extended period of limitation can be invoked for the levy of penalties, even when the issue is covered by a view taken by CESTAT and when there is no separate requirement of disclosure in the returns.
Analysis: The Supreme Court’s consideration of this case revolved around the penalty imposed for alleged suppression of facts in relation to the valuation of goods. The assessee, Reliance Industries Ltd, had not included the monetary value of duty benefits obtained from customers due to transfer advance licenses. The valuation was done in line with the view taken by CESTAT during that period, although it was later reversed by the Supreme Court. Moreover, there was no separate disclosure requirement in the return for such sales involving transfer of advance licenses.
The extent of disclosure by an assessee is linked to their understanding of legal requirements. In this case, the assessee self-assessed its liability based on the interpretation given by CESTAT. It could not have anticipated the subsequent overturning of CESTAT’s decision by the Supreme Court. Therefore, the assessee’s conduct during the relevant period cannot be considered malafide, as they followed the view taken by the Tribunal. The assessee had also disclosed its pricing policy through separate letters to the department, and the required returns were filed. Notably, the returns did not have a separate column for disclosing details of deemed export clearances.
The self-assessment procedure did not mandate the submission of all contracts, agreements, and invoices. Hence, there is no basis for agreeing with the Commissioner’s findings that certain relevant documents were not filed and suppressed. An assessee can be accused of suppressing only those facts that are required to be disclosed by law. The Revenue failed to demonstrate any provision or rule that necessitated additional disclosures in this case. Therefore, the claim of suppression of facts is deemed untenable.
Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.
Author Bio
