Chartered Accountant
Bookmark and Share
click here to subscribe our newsletter
 
 
Corporate News *  Service tax penalty can’t survive when assessee acted on dept.’s own view of non-taxability: Delhi High Court. *  GST section 74 extended limitation questionable when form 26AS mismatch was already known: Karnataka High Court grants interim relief. *  CGST demand prima facie impermissible after state GST settlement under section 128A: Bombay High Court. *  Supreme Court asks GSTAT to sympathetically consider delay as taxpayers pursued remedy before wrong forum. *  Supreme Court stays Tripura High Court ruling protecting genuine buyers from ITC denial over supplier’s GST default. *  Diary entries alone can’t prove clandestine removal of goods: CESTAT quashes excise penalty on steel trader. *  Customs could investigate preferential tariff claims even before sec. 28DA: Delhi High Court. *  Customs dept. relied on fake AI generated case laws: supreme court quashes Rs. 425.28 crore penalty. *  No GST exemption in affiliation and annual registration charges for admission or conduct Of examinations: GSTAT. *  Mere invoices, cheque payments insufficient to establish genuine movement of goods: GSTAT restores Rs. 43.44 lakh ITC demand. *  Consolidated GST show cause notice covering multiple financial years is not without jurisdiction: Delhi High Court. *  Construction of independent houses on separate plots not taxable as ‘Residential Complex’ without common facilities: CESTAT. *  GST penalty exceeding statutory maximum unsustainable; Allahabad High Court quashes ? 50,000/- penalty after taxpayer filed return and paid late fee. *  GST order against standard chartered bank passed without hearing set aside by Bombay High Court. *  Retracted statements can’t be relied upon without cross-examination: CESTAT quashes gold confiscation. *  Burden to prove misclassification lies on customs department: CESTAT. *  CESTAT quashes Rs. 98 lakh excise demand on clearance of used refractory brick scrap. *  Service tax demand on irrigation works quashed: Karnataka High Court rules sale of goods component not taxable as service. *  GSTAT restores tax and penalty for transporting iron scrap without E-way bill citing intent to evade tax. *  Madras High Court stays GST recovery from directors without opportunity to show cause under section 89. *  Madras high court stays GST recovery notice against directors; finds prima facie case on applicability of section 79(1)(c). *  Procedural lapses can’t justify harsh punishment without serious customs breach: CESTAT quashes customs broker licence revocation. *  Service tax payable on land leasing and sports complex charges: CESTAT. *  Settled customs dispute can’t be reopened through Article 226 challenge to interest liability: Delhi High Court. *  Mere facilitation of customs clearance can’t establish knowledge of smuggling: Madras High Court. *  GST registration cancellation stayed: Allahabad High Court questions 99% ITC utilisation cap under rule 86B. *  Composition scheme lapses automatically on crossing Rs. 1.5 crore turnover: GSTAT. *  Gujarat High Court quashes GST cancellation orders after officer relied on non-existent AI-generated case laws. *  Importers liable for customs duty benefits availed through manipulated scrips: Delhi High Court. *  Procedural E-way bill lapse alone can’t justify penalty where genuine transaction and absence of tax evasion are established: GSTAT.
Subject News *  Documentary evidence dominates probe, further custody unwarranted: mumbai court grants bail in Rs. 22.44 crore customs duty evasion case. *  Business premises can’t remain sealed for non-participation in GST search: Allahabad High Court. *  GST pre-deposit must be refunded proportionately when taxpayer partly succeeds in appeal: Bombay High Court. *  Supreme Court grants 30 days to file GST appeal; keeps pre-deposit issue open due to deposit in parallel CGST proceedings. *  GST demand can’t exceed amount proposed in SCN: Allahabad High Court quashes Rs. 20.47 Crore order. *  Hundreds-of-crores GST demand and heavy 10% pre-deposit no ground to bypass statutory appeal: Punjab & Haryana High Court. *  Delhi High Court refuses to entertain challenge to gold confiscation due to statutory appeal remedy and unexplained delay. *  Procedural error in customs broker licence inquiry can be rectified through remand: Delhi High Court. *  GSTR-2A mismatch alone can’t justify ITC denial without invoice-wise verification; personal hearing mandatory: GSTAT. *  GST order passed without uploading personal hearing notices violates sec. 75(4): Allahabad High Court. *  TAX EVASION - Sec. 74 GST SCN quashed for not spelling out fraud, wilful misstatement or suppression: Allahabad High Court. *  STPI’s SOFTEX certification and NoC charges taxable as business support services: CESTAT. *  Suspicion can’t replace proof: CESTAT quashes penalty in alleged gold-smuggling operation. *   Limitation runs from communication of order: Madras High Court upholds rejection of delayed GST Appeals. *  Rajasthan High Court quashes GST demand over unsigned show cause notice. *  ITC recovery upheld where supplier failed to deposit GST: Rajasthan High Court. *  Customs commissioner’s empowered to make port trust liable for duty on pilfered goods: Supreme Court. *  Rectification proceedings can’t be used to challenge an uncontested GST assessment through a writ petition: Andhra Pradesh HC. *  GST proceedings against deceased proprietor unsustainable without notice to legal heir: GSTAT. *  Mere availment of ineligible self-assessed ITC doesn’t amount to suppression without evidence of fraud or wilful misstatement: GSTAT. *  Disposal of mining overburden by entity authorised by mining lease holder constitutes taxable service: CESTAT. *  Toll plaza data not mandatory for ITC refund: GSTAT. *  Disputed GST fraud allegations require investigation: Punjab and Haryana High Court makes interim bail absolute in alleged fraud and GST fraud case. *  Non-manufacturer contractor liable to deposit excess excise duty collected from buyer: CESTAT. *  GST order can’t reject taxpayer’s reply as “not satisfactory” without reasons: Madhya Pradesh High Court. *  Uncorroborated statements can’t establish alleged diversion of duty-free goods: CESTAT. *  Erection services were not liable to service tax prior to 10th september 2004: CESTAT. *  Sec. 74 GST notice must spell out statutory ingredients for invoking extended tax demand proceedings: Allahabad High Court. *  No jurisdictional bar under section 6(2)(b) in parallel CGST SGST proceedings: Delhi High Court refuses to bypass GST appeal remedy. *  Madras High Court remits GST demand for fresh adjudication after taxpayer claims it was unaware of SCN following business closure.  

Comments
Print   |    |  Comment

Relief to EOU from Prior Approval for import without payment of duty

Relief to EOU from Prior Approval for import without payment of duty

 

 

Relief to EOU from Prior Approval for import without payment of duty

 

Difficulties faced on imports by EOU/EHTP/STP/BTP without payment of duty has been relieved with respect to the requirement of prior approval to be received from the Jurisdictional DC/AC of Customs vide Circular No. 10/2018 Customs dated 24.04.2018.

As we all know that EOUs can import the goods without payment of duty. Earlier in Central Excise regime also, EOU were procuring procurement certificate from the local range office and submitted the same to custom office for import at nil rate of duty. But with the introduction of GST, it was provided that only BCD exemption is available to EOU and they have to pay IGST and import the goods. EOU can take the credit on the same.

Later on the Government relaxed the provision and even IGST exemption was extended to EOU till March 31, 2017 vide notification number 78/2017-Customs dated 13th October 2017. The time limit for claiming exemption from payment of IGST was further extended to 1st October 2018 by notification number 33/2018-Customs dated 23-03-2018.

To import the goods by EOU, there is no requirement to take procurement certificate. It was provided to follow the Customs (Import at Concessional Rate of Duty) Rules, 2017. Now the application for these rules is to be made to Customs authorities. Earlier the jurisdiction of the custom formation was not defined. Hence, the Central Excise office was given the power under the impugned rules to issue annexure. From April 1, 2018 the bond of EOUs was transferred to custom authorities. Henceforth, they will be governing these rules for EOU.

For import of goods at nil rate of duty by EOU under aforesaid rules, they have to make an application to jurisdictional custom authorities and a copy of the same was given to custom authorities at port. These Rules provided that port authority will allow the import on intimation of such application to importer EOU. But the port custom authorities insisted on approval of application by jurisdictional custom authorities so that they can ensure that the amount is debited in bond maintained by them. However, there was no such requirement in the Rules. This circular has clarified the position only.

This circular states that the EOU’s are required to submit the information in duplicate regarding estimated quantity and value of goods to be imported to Jurisdictional DC/AC of Customs. One set is also required to be submitted to DC/AC of the Customs at Custom Station of importation who shall allow the benefit of Exemption Notification to the importer on the basis of the information provided.

It is further being prescribed that Jurisdictional DC/AC of Customs shall ensure that the intimation received is properly scrutinized, so that only the eligible goods are imported duty free. After scrutiny at the customs, one copy shall be forwarded to the DC/AC at the customs station of importation who would reconcile the goods imported with the Bill of Entry. Thus there is no prerequisite of prior approval from the Jurisdictional DC/AC of the Customs.   

This is welcome step by CBIC to clarify the position. EOU can easily import the goods at concessional rate of duty.

But now the EOU has to pursue one more authority for their work. Earlier also they are governed by two authorities viz. Central Excise office under Ministry of Finance and Development Commissioner of Export Processing zone falling under Ministry of Commerce. Now, import and export related work will be handled by custom authorities. GST related work will be handled by CGST or SGST authorities. Development commissioner has overall control of working of EOU.

The content of this GST update is for educational purpose only and not intended for solicitation.

You can reach us at www.capradeepjain.com, at our facebook page on https://www.facebook.com/GSTTODAYBYPRADEEPJAIN/ as well as follow us on Twitter at https://www.twitter.com/@capradeepjain21

Your Need Our Concern…

Thanking you,

Regards,

         

Pradeep Jain, F.C.A.

Post a Comment
Department News


Query
 
PRADEEP JAIN, F.C.A.

Head Office : -

Address :
"SUGYAN", H - 29, SHASTRI NAGAR, JODHPUR (RAJ.) - 342003

Phone No. :
0291 - 2439496, 0291 - 3258496

Mobile No. :
09314722236

Fax No. :0291 - 2439496


Branch Office : -

Address:
1008, 10th FLOOR, SUKH SAGAR COMPLEX,
NEAR FORTUNE LANDMARK HOTEL, USMANPURA,
ASHRAM ROAD, AHMEDABAD-380013

Phone No. :
079-32999496, 27560043

Mobile No. :
093777659496, 09377649496

E-mail :pradeep@capradeepjain.com