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

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