Chartered Accountant
Bookmark and Share
click here to subscribe our newsletter
 
 
Corporate News *  Missing seized records must be considered while testing ITC claim; duplicate GST demands ordered corrected: Delhi High Court. *  GST appeal can’t be rejected without addressing taxpayer’s grounds: Allahabad High Court. *  Surplus IGST credit can offset CGST, SGST shortfall: GSTAT. *  GST refund can’t be denied when cancelled airfares are returned with tax: GSTAT. *  3 Hearing notices issued within 2 minutes: Gujarat High Court flags portal flaw, seeks report. *  GSTR-9, GSTR-9C filing for FY 2025-26 enabled; pending GSTR-1 and GSTR-3B must be filed first. *  Dupattas are exempt fabrics, can’t be taxed as fibres at 4%: Madras High Court. *  Full transitional credit allowed on capital goods received after GST rollout: GSTAT denies Rs. 6.99 lakh export duty credit. *  GST return mismatch alone can’t justify fraud proceedings: GSTAT orders fresh adjudication under section 73. *  Supplier found non-existent later can’t alone justify input tax credit denial: GSTAT. *  GST interest stops once tax reaches government account, can’t run until return filing: GSTAT. *  Cancelled flat booking- GST refund can’t be denied without excluding COVID period from limitation: GSTAT. *  India notifies rules of origin for India–New Zealand FTA. *  Incomplete E-bike kits classifiable as complete vehicles, but not eligible for CKD duty concession: CESTAT. *  Same GST rate on main input and output can’t by itself bar inverted duty refund: GSTAT. *  Unjust enrichment doesn’t apply to customs refunds from assessments finalised before July 13, 2006: Gujarat High Court. *  CENVAT credit can’t be denied solely because plant And machinery are embedded in earth: Karnataka High Court. *  DFIA exports ineligible for RoDTEP benefits; customs directs repayment with applicable interest. *  Second E-Way bill alone doesn’t prove another supply: GSTAT. *  Bail denied in Rs. 1.19 crore fake GST refund case over risk of accused absconding again: Punjab and Haryana High Court. *  GST registration can be restored after revocation deadline if outstanding dues are paid: Gauhati High Court. *  Multiple GST proceedings over same suppliers: Calcutta High Court directs dept. to share findings for adjudication. *  E-Governance portal services not OIDAR, fixed deposit interest not taxable: CESTAT. *  Rs. 500 Stamp duty required on authority letters for CAs, CMA and GST practitioners in Pune GST division.  *  Rs. 1.10 crore GST refund must be paid in cash after business closure: Allahabad High Court. *  Godown rent attracts 18% GST even when used exclusively for exempt agricultural warehousing: AAR. *  GST portal launches "Multi-State Registration" facility: one master TRN for registration applications across multiple States/UTs. *  RoDTEP scheme extended till 31st December, 2026.  *  Mere disagreement with order can’t override Rs. 20 lakh appeal limit: GSTAT. *  Customs interest can’t be backdated before confiscation liability is determined; nearly 8 year period excluded: Delhi High Court.
Subject News *  GST summons: anticipatory bail maintainable without arrest order, but relief denied in evasion case: Allahabad High Court. *  GST Appeal can’t be decided without hearing taxpayer’s objections to fresh evidence: Allahabad High Court. *  GST ITC can’t be reversed merely because supplier grants discount without reducing tax liability: GSTAT. *  Mere quoting of GST provision is not a valid charge: GSTAT quashes ITC denial. *  Personal hearing mandatory before adverse GST order, even without taxpayer’s request: Rajasthan High Court. *  Parallel bail pleas without full disclosure amount to abuse of process Rs. 43.08 crore GST case sent for fresh hearing: Supreme Court. *  GST refund based on unchallenged advance ruling can’t be recovered using later circular: GSTAT. *  Payment of GST alone doesn’t end interest and penalty liability when tax and interest remain unpaid beyond 30 days of notice: GSTAT. *  GST demand over builders’ 80% procurement rule requires reasoned adjudication: GSTAT. *  Eligible ITC doesn’t automatically entitle taxpayers to compensation cess refund on domestic sales: GSTAT. *  GST confiscation order passed before reply deadline invalid: GSTAT. *  GST interest can’t be retained after tax refund on delayed export receipts: Punjab & Haryana High Court. *  GST appeal can’t be dismissed over pre-deposit shortfall without opportunity To respond: Bombay High Court. *  DGGI SCN can’t be challenged before reply and adjudication:Chhattisgarh High Court. *  GST input tax credit can’t be denied solely due to supplier’s retrospective registration cancellation: GSTAT. *  GST notice must explain fraud allegations; merely repeating section 74 Is not enough:  Himachal Pradesh High Court. *  Audit detection alone can’t justify GST fraud penalty; specific suppression must be proved: GSTAT. *  GST order uploaded only under ‘Additional Notices’ tab without separate intimation set aside: Calcutta High Court. *  Service Tax appeal can’t be rejected for missing pre-deposit proof when payment is already recorded: CESTAT. *  SGST dept. can’t hear appeal against CGST order: Calcutta High Court. *  Mere dispatch of tax order can’t prove service or make appeal time-barred: CESTAT. *  Dealer incentives can’t be taxed merely on ledger entries: CESTAT. *  DGFT orders quashed for failure to supply DRI letter relied upon in SCN: Bombay High Court. *  GST penalty u/s 122(1A) can’t apply to Pre-2021 transactions; unregistered beneficiaries also covered: Delhi High Court. *  Expired E-way bill caused by wrong PIN code can’t justify GST penalty without intent to evade tax: GSTAT. *  Used railway rails can’t be taxed as track material without proof they are fit for reuse: CESTAT. *  Earlier DGGI notice doesn’t bar separate GST demand on different issue: Delhi High Court. *  ITC dispute involves no question of law: GSTAT directs appeal to Vice-President. *  Earlier DGGI notice doesn’t bar separate GST demand On different issue: Delhi High Court. *  No E-way bill required for interstate goods movement in november 2017: GSTAT quashes detention and penalty.  

Comments
Publish Date: 05 Jun, 2007
Print   |    |  Comment

PAYMENT OF DUTY ON NEW COLD ROLLING MACHINES FOR PATTA-PATTI MANUFACTURERS

PAYMENT OF DUTY ON NEW COLD ROLLING MACHINES FOR PATTA-PATTI MANUFACTURERS
 
            The manufacturers of stainless steel patta-patti are covered under special procedure contained in Rule 96 ZA to Rule 96 ZGG of Central Excise Rules. They are currently paying duty at the rate of Rs. 15000/- per cold rolling machine per month. This article ponders over the payment of duty on new machine installed in the factory premises of such manufacture.
 
            As per provisions of Rule 96ZC(3),any manufacturer has to intimate as well as obtain permission before making any change in number of machines installed in the factory premises. The duty is payable as per provisions of Rule 96ZC(2) which is only charging provisions. This Rule reads as follows: -
 
            “The sum payable as under sub-rule (1) shall be calculated by application of such rate to the maximum number of cold rolling machines installed by or on behalf of such manufacturer in one or more premises at any time during three calendar months immediately preceding the calendar month in which the application under Rule 96 ZC is made.”
 
            Also, the manufacturer has to deposit duty and apply to Central Excise Department for the permission for clearance of patta-patti from his factory for ensuing month as per provisions of Rule 96 ZC (1) ibid. The Rule is enumerated below: -
 
            “Such manufacturer shall, at any time during the calendar month immediately preceding any month of part thereof, as the case may be, in respect of which he has been permitted to avail himself of the provisions of this section, make an application to the proper officer in the proper Form for leave to remove [stainless steel/pattas, or aluminium circles] from his premises during he ensuing month, declaring therein the maximum number of cold rolling machines installed by him or on his behalf, in one or more premises at any time during three calendar months immediately preceding the calendar month in which application is made.
 
            Now, we look at a practical example. Suppose, a manufacturer is operating with two machines seeks permission from the department in the month of July- 2000 for starting third new machine from August-2000 as per provisions of Rule 96 ZC (3). He will file application AR-8AA (prescribed under Rule 96 ZC (1)) with the department at the end of calendar month of July-2000 along with calculation of number of machines. The three proceeding months immediately preceding the calendar month of July-2000 will be June-2000, May-2000 and April-2000. The maximum number of machines will be two only. As such, he has to pay duty for two machines only.
 
            Similarly, during the next month he will deposit duty for September-2000 at the end of August-2000. The immediate preceding three calendar months to said calendar month (August-2000) will be July-2000, June-2000 and May-2000. The maximum number of cold rolling machines in these months will be two only as the new machine gas started in August-2000.
 
            Thereafter, he will deposit duty at the end of September-2000 for the month of October-2000. The three preceding calendar month will be August-2000, July-2000 and June-2000 and number of machines will be as under: -
 
Month
No. of Machines
August-2000
Three
July-2000
Two
June-2000
Two
 
            So, he has to deposit the duty for three machines being the maximum number of machines. So, it is ample clear that he need not to pay duty for continuous two months even if the machine is started by him. In this case, the machine is started in August-2000 but he is paying duty for the month of October-2000.
 
            Furthermore, the argument advanced that the existing set of Rules does not contain any provision for new machine is baseless because the calculation of maximum number of machine implies the change in number of machines. Otherwise, it does not have any meaning. So, the manufacturer need not to pay duty from the starting of machine itself. But the department has deployed its old weapon of seeking clarification from Board and asking the assessee to pay duty till the clarification is received. Let us wait for clarification and pray to God so that it might be received in years to come.
 
 
 --------------------------------------------------------------------- 
 
 

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