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
Publish Date: 17 May, 2010
Print   |    |  Comment

Non-Melting Controversy on Melting Scrap Part-II

 

Non- Melting Controversy on Melting Scrap- Part-II

 

Prepared By: -

CA. Pradeep Jain

Sukhvinder Kaur LLB[FYIC]

And CA. Ridhi Anchalia

 

Introduction: -

 

It is truly said that litigation never stops. Litigation and law are twins and will go along. It is immaterial how perfectly a provision is framed. We have already written an article on the controversy of melting scrap of stainless steel titled as “Non melting controversy on melting scrap”. It can be viewed on our website www.capradeepjain.com. There are certain latest developments on this issue which has prompted us to write this article. The first development is regarding latest Tribunal decision on this issue on which we have already prepared a case study no. PJ/CASE STUDY/2010-11/04 which can also be viewed on our website. The second development is reduction of BCD on scrap of stainless steel from 5% to 2.5% by Notification no. 54/2010-Cus, dated 29.04.2010 introduced while passing the Finance Bill. We will discuss the implications of these latest developments on this issue. But before proceeding further, let us bring the history of amendments of this issue to have a better understanding of the subject.

 

Brief history of amendments: -

 

Amendments relating to ‘Melting scrap of Iron or Steel’ & ‘Melting scrap of stainless steel’: -

 

In the year 2002, the entries relating to ‘Melting scrap of Iron or Steel’ and ‘Melting scrap of stainless steel’ in the Notification read as under:

 

 

S.

No.

 

Chapter Heading

No. or sub-

heading No.

Description of goods                                         Con‑

 

Standard Rate

Additional

Rate

Condition

no.

200

72.04

 

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.

 

5.00%

-

20

202

7204.21

Scrap of stainless steel for the purpose of melting

5.00%

-

-

 

In the year of 2003, the rate of basic customs duty for melting scrap of iron or steel at serial number 200 was reduced to ‘Nil’ rate vide Notification No. 83/2004-Cus, dated 20.08.04. The entries read as under:

 

 

S.

No.

 

Chapter Heading

No. or sub-

heading No.

Description of goods                                        Con‑

 

Standard Rate

Additional

Rate

Condition

no.

200

72.04

 

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.

 

NIL

-

20

202

7204.21

Scrap of stainless steel for the purpose of melting

5.00%

-

-

 

The next amendment to the entries relating to melting scrap of steel were brought in the year 2006 vide Notification No. 11/2006-Cus dated 01.03.2001. The entries read as under: -

 

 

S.

No.

 

Chapter Heading

No. or sub-

heading No.

Description of goods                                        Con‑

 

Standard Rate

Additional

Rate

Condition

no.

200

72.04

 

Melting scrap of iron or steel

 

5.00%

-

-

202

7204.21

Scrap of stainless steel for the purpose of melting

5.00%

-

-

 

Thus, in the year the rate of basic customs duty for melting scrap of iron and steel was restored to 5%. Another change effected in the year 2006 was that the specific exclusion of stainless steel from entry 200 was removed. This was done by removing the words “(other than stainless steel or heat resisting steel)” from the said entry. Till 2006, scrap of steel was expressly excluded from entry 200 of the said Notification.

 

The next amendment related to the said entries was effected in the year 2008. The entries read as under: -

 

 

S.

No.

 

Chapter Heading

No. or sub-

heading No.

Description of goods                                        Con‑

 

Standard Rate

Additional

Rate

Condition

no.

200

72.04

 

Melting scrap of iron or steel

 

NIL

-

-

202

7204.21

Scrap of stainless steel for the purpose of melting

5.00%

-

-

 

Thus, the rate of basic customs duty for the entry ‘Melting scrap of iron and steel’ at serial number 200 was reduced to ‘Nil’ rate. However, no change was introduced in the rate of duty for ‘scrap of stainless steel for melting’ at serial no. 202.

 

Dispute Involved: -

 

The entries relating to scrap of steel and stainless steel in the year 2008 were to the effect that rate of duty for steel was reduced to ‘Nil’ rate. Thus, the problem started with this difference of duty. The importer pleaded that the scrap of steel covers the stainless steel also and there are two exemptions available to him. When two exemption notifications are available then the option lies with the assessee to choose any of them. But the department pleaded that firstly “steel” does not cover the “stainless steel”. Secondly, when there is specific exemption for stainless steel scrap then the assessee can not opt for the general exemption.

 

Judgment passed by the Tribunal: -

 

So here came the Hip Hip Hurrah for the assessee as the Hon’ble Tribunal accepted the contention of the assessee 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.

 

It was also held by the Highest tribunal in matters of Custom and Central Excise that deletion of words “Other than stainless steel scrap” from the entry at serial no.200 clearly includes the stainless steel scrap in this entry.

 

It was further held that the appellant (assessee) could claim exemption under the entry 200 or 202 in view of the judgments delivered in the cases 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)].

 

Thus, the assessee was allowed to avail the benefit of exemption which is more beneficial to the assessee. As already stated we have prepared the case study on the same case wherein complete details of the case is available. {See PJ/CASE STUDY/2010-11/04 in Case Study section}

 

New Development: -

 

We have already narrated above that litigation never stops. The amendments and litigations are twin brothers. This has happened here also. Again came a new amendment in the Notification for the same entries.

 

Now, the Board has brought an amendment in the entry at serial number 202 relating to “scrap of stainless steel for melting purposes”. The duty at serial number 202 was reduced from 5% to 2.5%. We have reported on the same in our weekly updates available on our website. The entry read as under: -

 

 

S.

No.

 

Chapter Heading

No. or sub-

heading No.

Description of goods                                        Con‑

 

Standard Rate

Additional

Rate

Condition

no.

202

7204.21

Scrap of stainless steel for the purpose of melting

2.5%

-

-

 

The amendment has been introduced vide Notification No. 54/2010-Cus, dated 29.04.2010. Even it was said by the department that it has been done on the representation of the associations.

 

Outcome of Amendment: -

 

We have to see what will be the outcome of this amendment. The future will reveal about the same. We are tax experts and not Jyotishi. However, we try to analysis the situation of this amendment on the basis of our knowledge and belief. The department will contend that the intention of the Government is clear that there should be separate levy for stainless steel scrap. And the assessee will contend that the law is not based on intentions. If the intention of the Government was to have separate entry for stainless steel scrap then they should have not deleted the words “other than stainless steel scrap” from the entry 200. This deletion has underlined the intention of the Government in that year only.

 

But one thing is granted that the litigation will not end here. Let us wait and see the future.

 

Before parting: -

 

The only possible solution to end this litigation that can be taken by the Government in a view with cognizance of the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Tribunal in the case of M/s Mangalam Alloys is to prudently delete the entry at serial number 202 from the Notification No. 21/2002-Cus. Only then the controversy will come to complete rest. Else the helpless assessee will have to face the burden of the amendments made by the government. So what about such litigations that are just created by the government because of their carelessness while drafting the notifications? What about such situations that are faced by the assessee? These are some of the questions that remain unanswered.

 

*************

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