Chartered Accountant
Bookmark and Share
click here to subscribe our newsletter
 
 
Corporate News *  GST registration cancellation without reasons amounts to ‘Economic Death’ of business: Supreme Court. *  No GST refund if appeal before GSTAT is filed late: Gujarat High Court. *  Mere upload of GST notice on portal not valid service, appeal limitation won’t start: Punjab & Haryana High Court. *  Taxpayer can’t be penalised for missing notices hidden under ‘Additional Notices/Orders’: Calcutta High Court allows fresh adjudication. *  State tax officer can’t issue GST SCN beyond CBIC-assigned jurisdiction: Bombay High Court stays recovery proceedings. *  Earlier 7.5% Pre-Deposit must count towards mandatory 10% for Appeal: Uttarakhand high court quashes CESTAT Order. *  Third Parties can’t challenge GST Advance Rulings merely due to financial impact: Karnataka HC *  GST SCN generated using AI tool quashed: Punjab & Haryana High Court *  Bank Attachment Quashed as Madras HC Quashes GST Order Issued Against Deceased Person *  ITC Blocking Order for Failure to Record ‘Reason to Believe’ U/R 86A Quashed: Allahabad High Court *  Govt Extends GSTAT Appeal Filing Deadline From 30 June to July 31, 2026 *  GST Demand on RWA Stayed: Allahabad High Court Questions Taxability of Electricity Distribution to Flat Owners *  CBIC Clarifies Jurisdiction After GST Registration Transfer: Earlier Proceedings Remain Valid, New Officer to Continue Action *  GST authorities’ certification not mandatory for reimbursement, but tax payment must be proven: Karnataka HC *  Contractor can’t seek gst reimbursement through writ when contract has arbitration clause: Karnataka HC *  Unsigned Order Is No Order in Law: AP HC Quashes GST Assessment Order for Want of Officer’s Signature *  Customs Can’t Levy Rs. 1.36 Crore Cost Recovery Charges Without Proof of Full-Day Officer Deployment: CESTAT  *  12% IGST Payable On Imported Dialysis Machine Parts: CESTAT *  Bombay High Court Admits Challenge to GST Limitation Extension Notifications; Grants Protection Against Coercive Recovery *  Criminal Case Can’t Run Parallel to GST Proceedings on Same Facts: Allahabad High Court *  Allahabad High Court Stays GST Detention Order; Directs Release of Vehicle and Goods on Deposit of Rs. 1.44 Lakh *  Service Tax Can’t Be Levied on Loss-Making Contracts: Gujarat High Court *  GSTN Mandates Ship-to GSTIN in e-Invoice and e-Way Bill APIs; Introduces Voluntary e-Way Bill Closure Facility from August 1, 2026 *  GST Appeal Can’t Be Rejected as Time-Barred When Taxpayer Was Pursuing Rectification Remedy: Telangana High Court *  Absence of E-Way Bill and Transport Documents Justifies Customs Seizure U/s 110: Gauhati HC *  Madras High Court Upholds GST Late Fee and Penalty for Non-Filing of Annual Return, Dismisses Challenge  *  GST Records, Purchase Documents Sufficient to Discharge Burden Under Customs Act: CESTAT Orders Release of 3.65 Kg Gold  *  No Sugar Cess Payable on Sugar Exported Out of India: CESTAT *  Road Construction Services Exempt and SCN Time-Barred: CESTAT Quashes Service Tax Demand Based Solely on Form 26AS  *  ITC Freeze Upheld After GST Dept Find Suppliers Were Allegedly Fake Bill-Trading Entities: Madras HC 
Subject News *  Input service benefits can’t be denied: CESTAT allows export refund despite MMTC acting as Canalising agency. *  No service tax demand without proof of service of SCN: CESTAT. *  Service tax demand quashed as dept. fails to prove service of SCN: CESTAT *  GST : Mere allegation of inadequate consideration of reply not enough to invoke writ jurisdiction: Delhi High Court *  Onerous conditions imposed for provisional release of seized imported goods shouldn’t amount to virtual denial of relief: CESTAT. *  GST SCN without alleging fraud cannot invoke sec. 74: Karnataka High Court quashes adjudication order. *  Extended Limitation Can’t Be Invoked Merely on Form 26AS Data: CESTAT *  Revenue-Sharing with Restaurants Not Taxable as Business Support Service: CESTAT *  R. 6(3) Option Can’t Be Forced on Taxpayer; CESTAT Quashes Rs. 12.36 Crore CENVAT Credit Demand *  Excise Duty | Power Consumption Alone Can’t Prove Clandestine Manufacture: Karnataka High Court *  Madras High Court Examines DGGI’s Authority to Issue GST Penalty Orders Under Section 122, Adds DGGI as Party *  Proceedings under omitted r. 96(10) can’t survive without saving clause: andhra pradesh high court quashes gst refund recovery *  Excise duty power consumption alone can’t prove clandestine manufacture: karnataka high court *  Madras high court rules GST show cause notices must disclose grounds for invoking extended limitation *  Court Can’t Direct Extension GST Return Deadlines or Waive Interest and Penalties: Karnataka High Court *  GST Notifications Can’t Go Beyond GST Council Recommendations: Madras High Court Quashes SCN on Branded Pulses *  Appeal Can’t Be Dismissed for Delay When Dept’s Own Order Mis-states Limitation Period: CESTAT *  No Evidence of KYC or Due Diligence Breach By Customs Broker: CESTAT Quashes Licence Revocation in Export Overvaluation Case *  Glucometers Are Chemical Analysis Instruments Classifiable Under Tariff Heading 9027: CESTAT *  Validity of Post-GST Service Tax Proceedings Upheld: Gujarat High Court Dismisses Challenge to S. 73 SCN *  Rectified GST Refund Applications Can’t Be Rejected as Time-Barred If Original Refund Claim Was Filed Within Limitation: Gujarat HC *  Service Tax Refund Can’t Be Denied as Time-Barred When Levy Itself Is Unconstitutional: Gujarat High Court *  Same Officer Can’t Act As Auditor & Adjudicator: Karnataka High Court *  Karnataka High Court Condones 324-Day Delay, Revives Customs Appeal in Jewellery Pilferage Case  *  Madras High Court Quashes GST Assessment Order Passed Ex Parte Despite Prior ITC Reversal; Lifts Bank Attachment *  Tobacco Process Doesn’t Amount to Manufacturing: Madras High Court Quashes Rs. 1.32 Crore Compensation Cess Demand  *  Recovery Notice Unsustainable After Voluntary Reversal of Unutilised Credit: CESTAT  *  GST | ‘System Generated’ SCN Without Officer Details Invalid: Allahabad HC  *  Electronic Records Without Statutory Certification Requirements Can’t Justify Undervaluation Allegations: CESTAT *  Madras High Court Stays GST Order, Finds Prima Facie Merit in Plea Against S. 74 Proceedings Based on S. 73 Intimation  

Comments

Publish Date: 01 Mar, 2011
Print   |    |  Comment

Changing Levy of import duty on Stainless Steel Scrap

Changing Levy of import duty on Stainless Steel Scrap

Prepared By: 
CA Pradeep Jain
And Sukhvinder Kaur, LLB[FYIC] 

The rate of customs duty on the import of Stainless Steel Scrap under exemption Notification No. 21/2002-Cus dated 01.03.2002 has always been surrounded by controversies. There has been an amendment in the rate of duty on the import of SS scrap in almost all the Budgets announced in the recent years. We wrote article earlier on this controversy titled as “Non- Melting Controversy on Melting Scrap
 
Legislative Changes:-
 
In 2002, there were two separate entries existed in Notification No. 21/2002-Cus, dated 01.03.2002. In the entry at serial no. 200 the description of goods was “Melting of scrap of iron or steel (other than stainless steel or heat resisting steel), for use in, or supply to, a unit for the purpose of melting” falling under heading 72.04.
 
And the entry at serial no. 202 read as “Scrap of stainless steel for the purpose of melting” falling under heading 7204.21. On both the entries the standard rate of duty prescribed was uniform i.e. @ 5%. Also, the stainless steel scrap was specifically excluded from entry at serial no. 200.
 
In the year 2003, the rate of duty for Melting scrap of iron or steel as listed at Serial no. 200 was reduced to Nil. But there was no change in the rate of duty for Scrap of Stainless Steel listed at serial no. 202. The stainless steel scrap was still specifically excluded from entry at serial no. 200.
 
Then in the year 2006, the Notification No. 21/2002-Cus was again amended in this regard. The description of goods of the serial no. 200 read as “Melting scrap of iron or steel”. Thus, the stainless steel was not specifically excluded from the said entry. Also, the rate of duty was changed and from Nil duty again a duty @ 5% was levied.
 
No change was made in the entry at serial no. 202. Although the with regard to rate of duties, both the entries were at par. But now, the stainless steel scrap could fall under either of the entries as the phrase excluding stainless steel scrap from entry at serial no. 200 was removed. 
 
The next amendment in the said entries was brought in the year 2008. Again the rate of basic customs duty for entry at serial no. 200 i.e. for Melting scrap of iron or steel was again reduced to Nil. While the rate of duty for entry at serial no. 202 i.e. for scrap of stainless steel was maintained at 5%.
 
However, there was a significant development this time. Since the scrap of stainless steel was not excluded from entry at serial no. 200, the importer who was importing stainless steel scrap for melting could avail exemption from payment of BCD under the said entry saying that there are two exemption notifications. Stainless steel is also type of steel and hence the exemption is available under the entry scarp of iron or steel.
 
Dispute: -
 
As per the amended provisions the importer claimed the benefit of importing stainless steel scrap for melting at Nil rate under entry at serial no. 200. However, the Department objected to the same on the ground that stainless steel scrap would specifically fall under entry at serial no. 202 and the assessee was liable to pay duty at the rate of 5% on the import of the said goods.
 
The dispute reached the Tribunal level in case of Mangalam Alloys Limited [Final Order No. A/308-314/WZB/AHD/2010 Dated 22.04.2010]. We have brought a case study on the same which is still available on our website www.capradeepjain.com. The department assessed the duty @ 5% duty and importer filed appeal against the assessment orders claiming benefit under entry at serial no. 200. The basis for challenging the levy was that as there were two entries, the assessee would claim benefit of more beneficial entry. The appeals against the assessment order filed before the Commissioner (Appeals) were rejected denying the benefit of paying Nil rate of duty under serial no. 200.
 
Decision of the Tribunal:-
 
Thereafter, the appeal was preferred by the assessee before the Tribunal. The Tribunal accepted the contentions raised by us that steel covers stainless steel. Although there is difference in their composition but the base metal is steel in both goods. It was held that stainless steel is only a form of steel.
 
Further, following the Apex Court decision in case of Share Medicine Vs. UOI [2007 (209) ELT 321 (SC)],CCE Vs. Indian Petrochemicals [1997  (92) ELT 13 (SC)], HCL Vs. CCE [2001 (130) ELT 405 (SC)], Coca Cola India Pvt. Ltd. v/s CCE, Pune–III [2009 (242) ELT 168 (Bom.)] and IOCL v/s CCE [1991 (53) ELT 347 (Tri)], it was held that when there are two exemption notifications then option lies with assessee to choose anyone of them. The general or specific exemption does not make any difference.
 
Relief was granted to the assessee that he could claim exemption under the entry 200 or 202. The tribunal held that since he has opted for nil entry, hence the refund should be granted to him. But the department took the matter into Highest Court of India and matter is still pending over there.
 
Later Development:-
 
In the year 2010 vide Notification No. 54/2010-Cus dated 29.04.2010, the rate of duty on the import of Scrap of stainless steel for melting listed at serial no. 202 was reduced from 5% to 2.5%. But this time again the amendment was done in the entry of scarp of iron or steel. The words “other than stainless steel scrap” have been added. This implied that the exemption of iron and steel will not be applicable to stainless steel. Thus, the dispute was settled by the Board.
 
Thus, the drafting of legal provisions is very important. The government himself gave rise to litigation by drafting in erroneous manner.  Further, the constant changes in the said relevant entries have only resulted in confusion. We had suggested in our Article that the separate entry at serial number 202 should be deleted. But board has separated the entries and held that exemption is not available to S.S. scrap.
 
Budget Changes in 2011: -
 
Now, in Budget 2011-12 the Basic customs duty on Stainless steel scrap listed at serial no. 202 has been removed and the import of said item is now fully exempted. When the exemption was to given to both the entries then only one entry should have kept i.e. Scarp of iron or steel.
 
Conclusion:-
 
The constant changes in the entries at serial no. 200 and 202 have lead to confusion as stated hereinabove. Only the Government can understand as to how this situation works. The pattern noted in these two entries is that the duty is once imposed at the rate of 5% and in the next amendment full exemption is granted. And next time again the rate of 5% customs duty is imposed.
 
Now, we are standing at same place where we have started in the beginning. Now again exemption is given under both the entries. The single entry should be kept instead of two entries so that dispute does not arise in future. But who can tell the board. Further, the history repeats itself and we fear again the dispute should not arise. Otherwise it will again go to Apex Court. 

***********

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