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 LAW/2014-15/2305

Aluminium profile used by industrial consumers is ineligible for exemption linked with Legal Metrology Act.

Case:- POOJA HARDWARE PVT. LTD. Vs. COMMR. OF CUS. (IMPORT), NHAVA SHEVA

Citation:- 2014(306) E.L.T. 626 (Tri.-Mumbai)

Brief facts:-  The brief facts of the case are that the appellant made import of Aluminium profiles and claimed the benefit of Notification no. 29/2010-Cus., dated 27.2.2010. The goods were assessed to duty by denying the benefit of the notification. Appellant filed appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) and the same was dismissed. Hence, the present appeal before the Tribunal.

Appellant’s contentions:- The contention of the appellant is that notification provides exemption from payment of SAD to all pre-packaged goods intended for retail sale in relation to which it is required under the provisions of the standards of weights and measures act, 1976 or the rules made thereunder or under any other law for the time being in force, to declare on the package thereof the retail sale price of such article. The contention is that the goods in pre-packaged condition as per the Examination report and are for retail sale. Therefore the appellants are entitled for the benefit of the notification. All the conditions of the notification are fulfilled such as intended for retail sale, MRP on the package as required under the standards of Weights and Measures Act. The imported goods are sold by the appellant in the retail market in the same condition without any alteration therefore the benefit of the notification was wrongly denied.

Respondent’s contentions:- The revenue relied upon the finding of the lower authority and submitted that in bills of Entry the goods in question were declared as Aluminium Profile, hardware for furniture fittings. Therefore it cannot be considered as the same for retail sales. These are sold to the furniture manufacturers who further used the same in the manufacture of furniture items. Revenue also relied upon the provisions of Standards of Weights and Measures Act, 1976 now legal Metrology Act, 2009. The contention is that the provisions of standards of Weights and Measures Act, 1976 is not applicable for the commodity for industrial consumers.
In the present case the goods in question are used for manufacture of furniture therefore the appellants are not entitled for the benefit of the notification.

Reasoning of judgment:- The Hon’ble Court find that the dispute in this appeal is in respect of the benefit of notification no. 29/2010-Cus., dated 27.2.2010 which provides all pre-packaged goods intended for retail sale in relation to which it is required under the provisions of the standards of weights and measures act, 1976 or the rules made thereunder or under any other law for the time being in force, to declare on the package thereof the retail sale price of such article.
The condition of the notification is that the goods should be in pre-packaged condition intended for retail sale. The notification further provides that the retail sale price be fixed as required under the provisions of the standards of weights and measures act, 1976 (now Legal Metrology Act, 2009) or the rules made thereunder.
In the Bills of Entry the appellant declared the goods as “Aluminium Profile, hardware for furniture fittings”. The goods in question are further used by the furniture manufacturer. They find as per the provisions of Legal Metrology Act and Rules, 2011 the provisions applicable to package intended for retail sale are not applicable in respect of packaged commodity meant for industrial consumers. The Legal Metrology Act further provides that retail sale is in relation to commodity means the sale, distribution or delivery of such commodity through retail shop or firms for same by a group of individual or another consumer. In the present case though the goods are pre-packaged condition but it is not for retail sale as evident from the declaration filed in the bills of entry, the goods in question, are for manufacture of furniture . The buyers further use the item in question for manufacture of furniture and provisions for packaged items intended for sale are not applicable in respect of packaged commodities meant for industrial consumers.
In view of the above they find no infirmity in the impugned order. The appeal is dismissed.

Decision:- Appeal dismissed.

Comment:- The analogy of the case is that the exemption under notification no. 29/2010-Cus. can be availed when pre-packaged goods are intended for retail sale and are covered by the provisions of Legal Metrology Act. In case the goods are in pre-packaged condition but used for manufacture of furniture and not for retail sale as such, the benefit of exemption notification would not be admissible as the provisions of Legal Metrology Act are not applicable in respect of packaged commodities used by industrial consumers.

Prepared by :- Monika Tak

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