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: 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