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/2010-11/1095

Application for conversion of Shipping bill from one scheme to another – cannot be rejected without giving sufficient reasons for doing so.

Case: JSW Steel Ltd v/s Commissioner of Customs, Visakhapatnam
 
Citation: 2011 (264) ELT 267 (Tri-Bang)
 
Issue: - Application for conversion of Shipping bill from one scheme to another – cannot be rejected without giving sufficient reasons for doing so.
 
Brief Facts: - The appellant had exported 7 consignments of Non-alloy steel slabs claiming benefit under EPCG & DEPB scheme. The benefit of DEPB was withdrawn from the goods exported.
 
The appellant applied to the Commissioner for amendment of the Shipping Bills claiming EPCG & DFIA benefits. The Commissioner vide letter dated 13.10.2009 rejected the request for conversion of Shipping bill without assigning any reasons.
 
Against the impugned letter, appellant has filed an appeal in the Tribunal.
 
Appellant’s Contention:- Appellant submitted that in terms of Section 149 of the Customs Act, 1962 the appellants had a statutory right to seek amendment of the shipping bills on the basis of documentary evidence that existed at the time of export of their goods. It was submitted that as per the relevant Foreign Trade Policy 2004-2009 Para 2.56 of the Handbook of Procedures any scheme could be converted into any other scheme so long as the benefit of that scheme in the EP copy had not been availed.
 
Appellant submitted that they could not obtain benefit of DEPB scheme because DGFT had withdrawn the DEPB scheme in respect of Steel Slabs under Public Notice No. 130(RE-2007)/2007-09 dated 27.03.2008.
 
Appellant relied upon the decision given in Metallic Bellows (I) Pvt Ltd v/s CC, Nhava Sheva [2008 (228) ELT 479 (Tri-Mum)] and in Sologuard Medical Devices Pvt Ltd v/s CC (Seaport), Chennai [2007 (216) ELT 62 (Tri-Chennai)].
 
It was further stated that the exports satisfied the requirements to qualify for the benefit of EPCG and DFIA schemes and as per Section 149 of the Customs Act, the shipping bills could be amended on the basis of documentary evidence that existed at the time of filing of shipping bills. It was submitted that the DFIA dated 13.06.2008 and 02.07.2008 were due to expire on 12.12.2010 and 01.01.2011 respectively. It was submitted that the Commissioner had given a cryptic and non-speaking communication to them rejecting their claim.
 
Respondent’s Contention:- Revenue contended that conversion of shipping bills from one export scheme to another was subject to conditions prescribed in Circular No. 4/2004-Cus dated 16.01.2004. Reference was made to the conditions enumerated therein and submitted that subject to these conditions, the Commissioner could examine the request of the exporter on a case to case basis.
 
Reasoning of Judgment:- The Tribunal held that that the conversion application was denied without communicating any reasons therefor. The Commissioner is competent to allow the amendment sought by the appellants. Appellant were entitled to the relief sought in terms of provisions of Section 149. The Tribunal remanded the matter to the Commissioner as the application was not disposed of by a speaking order.
 
Decision:- Appeal disposed of by way of remand.
 

************

Post a Comment
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