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: 03 Mar, 2016
Print   |    |  Comment

RULE 7B OF CENVAT CREDIT RULES, 2004 – A NEW CONCEPT FOR MULTI-UNIT COMPANIES

RULE 7B OF CENVAT CREDIT RULES, 2004 – A NEW CONCEPT FOR MULTI-UNIT COMPANIES

 

An article by:-
CA Pradeep Jain
CA Preeti Parihar

 
Introduction:-
 
Budget, 2016 has come up with some new provisions and concepts in the Central Excise Law. One such provision has been introduced in the name of rule 7B of Central Excise Rules, 2004 which has been framed on the same lines of input service distributor. This little article is about this new concept in the Central Excise Law.
 
New Rule 7B in Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004:-
 
After rule 7A of the CCR, the following rule 7 shall be inserted w.e.f. 1.4.2016:-
 
―7B. Distribution of credit on inputs by warehouse of manufacturer. - (1) A manufacturer having one or more factories, shall be allowed to take credit on inputs received under the cover of an invoice issued by a warehouse of the said manufacturer, who receives inputs under cover of invoices, issued in terms of the provisions of the Central Excise Rules, 2002, towards the purchase of such inputs.
 
(2) The provisions of these rules or any other rules made under the Excise Act as applicable to a first stage dealer or a second stage dealer, shall, mutatis mutandis, apply to such warehouse of the manufacturer.
 
Analysis of new rule 7B:-
 
This provision has following key features:-
 
·        It is applicable on manufacturer having one or more factories.
·        It is related to distribution of credit on inputs under a cover of excise invoice which are received by the warehouse.
·        The credit will be allowed on the basis of invoice issued by warehouse of said manufacturer.
·        The warehouse shall be required to follow the provisions as applicable to a first stage dealer or a second stage dealer.
 
While winding:-
At present, there is concept of input service distributor which distributes the credit on invoices of input services received by it. On the same lines, the concept of distribution of credit on inputs by warehouse has been introduced by this budget. This provision shall prove helpful to those manufacturers who have more than one unit. In such cases, normally manufacturer intent to purchase inputs in bulk, however, at times it is not possible to exactly ascertain which unit will require how much quantity. Thus, there are cases where invoice is issued to the address of one unit while the inputs are actually utilized in some other unit of same manufacturer. A lot of litigation has already been faced by such manufacturers regarding availment of credit as the invoice bear address of some other unit while the inputs are consumed at some other place. A no. of tribunal decisions like LARSEN & TOUBRE LIMITED Versus COLLECTOR OF C. EXCISE, BHUBANESWAR [1994 (72) E.L.T. 948 (Tribunal)] and A.S.W.M. SPINNING MILLS Versus COMMISSIONER OF C. EX., CHANDIGARH [2002 (148) E.L.T. 325 (Tri. - Del.)] are there where credit has been allowed in the unit where the same have been actually consumed regardless of the fact that the invoices bear address of some other unit. This provision will help to reduce litigation in such cases as the inputs may be purchased by the unit considered as warehouse in bulk and further invoiced to respective units as and when required. Thus, the new provision, the hopeful one, introduced to benefit a class of manufacturers, namely multi-unit companies!!!

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