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: 05 Jun, 2007
Print   |    |  Comment

ONE TIME CREDIT ON GOODS LYING IN STOCK

ONE TIME CREDIT ON GOODS LYING IN STOCK
 
 
            The CENVAT credit facility for Textile industry on actual basis has been introduced from April 1, 2003. As a measure, the Board has introduced transitional provisions for one time credit on stock as on 31.03.2003 under Rule 9A of Central Excise Rules, 2002. The provisions relating to same has been introduced by Notification no. 25/2003-CE (N.T.) dt. March 25, 2003. These are certain clarifications needed urgently for smooth implementation of the same: -
 
1.         VALUE OF INPUTS AS SUCH AND UNDER PROCESS: -
            As per Rule 9A (1) manufacturer can take credit on stock lying with him on the basis of actual duty paying documents. Otherwise, he can take credit on the basis of actual duty paying documents. Otherwise, he can take credit on the basis of declaration made by him under Rule 9A (2). It clearly says that credit will be available for inputs lying in stock or in process or contained in finished goods.
 
            Further, Rule 9A (2) (ii) provides that, a manufacturer whose finished goods and inputs covered by earlier deemed credit Notification No. 6/2002-CE (N.T.) dt. March 1, 2002, this transitional credit will be equal to product of: -
 
i)                    the applicable percentage credit in the said Notifications (66.67 % or 33.33%) ;
ii)                  the value of such finished product declared by the assessee ; and
iii)                the duty rate applicable to such final product in terms of Notification No. 7/2003-CE dt. 28.02.2003 (10% = 8% CENVAT, 2% AED).
 
Thereafter, this transitional credit on stock will be available on value of finished goods. There was under process as well as inputs as such lying in stock as on March 31, 2003. Therefore, credit will be available on likely value of finished product made from these products. This argument also gets strength from the fact that earlier deemed credit was available on value of finished goods at the time of removal of goods. This need clarification from the Board.
  
 
2.                  UNUTILIZED DEEMED CREDIT: -
The exporter has deemed credit unutilized lying with them as they can take the same on clearance of consignment for export under bond. This is clear from provisions of deemed credit. Notification No. 6/2002-CE (NT) dt. March 1, 2002. This reads as follows: -
 
“2(iii) The credit of declared duty allowed in respect of the declared inputs shall be utilized towards payment of duty of Excise or the additional duty of excise leviable under the said Central Excise Act and the Additional Duties of Excise (Goods of Special Importance) Act, on the said final product:
Provided that the credit of the declared duty in respect of the declared inputs used in the final products cleared for export under bond shall be allowed to be utilized towards payment of duty of excise on any final products cleared for home consumption or for export on payment of duty and, where for any reason, such adjustment is not possible, by refund to the manufacturer subject to such safeguard, conditions and limitations as may be specified by the Central Government in the Official Gazette.”
 
            This Notification is issued under Rule 11 of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2002. This is available on deemed basis. The department is contending that this balance credit can not be utilized for payment of duty as there is no provision for converting this credit in normal Cenvat Credit. But this is wrong conclusion drawn by them.
 
            The deemed credit is also a Cenvat Credit although under Notification issued from power under Rule 11 of Cenvat Credit Rules and there is no provision for lapsing of the same. Moreover this unutilized credit can be claimed refund from the department as per provisions of Notification no. 6/2002 CE (NT) dated 28.02.2002. The situation should be made clear to avoid unnecessary litigation.
 
3.         TRANSITIONAL CREDIT ON INTERMEDIATE PROCESS:-
            Earlier to this budget, the process of stentering and calendaring was exempt for cotton fabrics. By virtue of exemption Notification No. 6/2002 CE dated 01.03.2002 (S. No. 114). This was available to factory who does not facility of printing, dying or bleaching with the aid of power or steam. As such these processes were separately installed in a factory. They were receiving cotton fabrics and clearing the same at Nil rate of duty.
 
            They were also receiving the man made fabrics and taking the credit of duty paid on earlier process and clearing after payment of duty. They were not covered under Notification No. 6/2002 CE (NT) dated 01.03.2002 as they were receiving processed fabrics. The Explanation 3 of impugned Notification debars them which reads as follows:
 
            “For the removal of doubt, it is clarified that the provision of this Notification shall not apply where processed fabric itself is used as an Input for other processing”.
 
            Now, the duty is imposed on processing of cotton fabrics with these machines. This earlier exemption is withdrawn from 01.03.2003. They have to pay duty on stock lying with them if the same is cleared after 01.03.2002. However the transitional credit on stock will not be available to them as they were not covered under Notification No. 6/2003 CE (NT). These processes are intermediate processes and processed fabric is received by them. Now, they will have to pay the duty at the rate of 10% on total value which is very heavy. This is not intention of the Government. Therefore it needs clarification from the Government.
 
4.         TRANSITIONAL CREDIT ON HAND PROCESSING UNITS:-
            The transitional credit on deemed basis is available to fabrics processors only if these Inputs and finished goods are covered under Notification No. 6/2003 CE (NT). The stock of hand processing units is not covered under aforesaid Notification as their final product is exempt from levy of duty. However these units send their product on padding, stentering, calendaring, etc., which is done with the aid of power. Earlier these were exempt from levy of duty but Exemption is withdrawn from 01.03.2003. Thus, duty is to be paid on them and transitional credit is not available to these units. They cannot compete with power operated units. This situation also demands immediate intervention.
 
--------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
 
 
 
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