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

Print   |    |  Comment

PJ/Case Laws/2011-12/1574

Admissibility of Cenvat Credit on Inputs - For reduction in price credit note issued

CASE: COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, SURAT V/S. TRINETRA TEXTURISERS PVT. LTD.             

CITATION: 2004 (166) E.L.T. 384 (Tri-MUMBAI)
 
ISSUE:- Procurement of Inputs - Credit note issued by input supplier due to reduction in price – admissibility of cenvat credit
 
BRIEF FACTS:The facts in brief are that the respondents had taken Modvat credit on the basis of duty paying documents received from their suppliers. Subsequently, the suppliers had issued credit notes in favour of the respondents at the rate of Rs. 2/- per kg. On noticing this fact, the departmental authorities have coerced the respondents to debit the input credit amount equivalent to the duty reduction consequent to value reduction on the inputs, which occurred consequent to such credit notes. The respondents, complying with these directions, did reverse the corresponding amounts, as directed. There was no correction in the duty paying documents requiring the said correction in the credit amount. Therefore, the respondents suo moto took credit of the reversed amount. Proceedings through show cause notices were initiated against the respondents by alleging that the respondents cannot re-credit the Modvat amount suo moto, because there is no corresponding duty paying documents to entitle the claim of this suo moto credit. The respondents succeeded before the Commissioner (Appeals) and the Revenue’s instant appeals against the common order are directed against the relief granted by the Commissioner (Appeals).
 
APPELLANTS CONTENTION:It has been claimed that there is no provision to take credit on the basis of credit notes issued by the suppliers towards the inputs supplied. In the absence of duty paying documents to support such credit, the impugned order-in-appeal may be set aside.
 
REASONING OF JUDGEMENT: The effect of the credit note is that the purchaser has received the input at a cheaper price equivalent to the amount of credit note. Whether on account of issue of such credit notes, the assessable value of the input had to be scaled down and whether on such scaling down, the duty that has been paid by the supplier, as reflected in the invoices and the other statutory records of the supplier, has to be scaled down or not is a matter that has to be determined by the Central Excise authorities in charge of the suppliers unit. There is no evidence on record to suggest that such exercise was in fact carried out and such a duty reduction in respect of the consignments received by the respondents has actually occurred and the corresponding duty paying documents had been corrected. This having not been done, the entire exercise at the end of the purchaser factory for cutting down the credit, was without the authority of law. It has not been demonstrated in the appeal as to how the original exercise of pruning down the credit amount is supported by the provisions of the law. It is well settled legal position that the Central Excise authorities in charge of factories receiving inputs, have no jurisdiction to re-assess the duty on inputs received [Kerala State Electronic Corpn. v. CCE, Kochi - 1996 (84) E.L.T. 44 (Tribunal)]. The illegal and coercive reversal of credit on one hand, at the same time claiming that the respondents lack the authority to suo moto claim back the said credit on the other hand, tantamount to adding insult to injury. The approach also shows that, instead of correcting the illegality omitted by the department, the departmental authorities, by filing these instant appeals, are attempting to perpetuate this illegality, which cannot be supported. Besides the basic ground in the appeal that the respondents have taken a suo moto credit itself is a misstatement inasmuch as the credit taken was only to restore the actual credit available on the basis of duty paying documents and there was no effort to take credit in excess of the credit mentioned in the duty paying documents
 
DECISION:- Appeal rejected.

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