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 Laws/2010-11/1168

Benefit of concessional rate of duty - availability thereof when goods used in premises other than registered premises

Case:  Commr. of C. Ex., Chandigarh-I v/s J.C.T. Electronics Ltd
 
Citation: 2011(267) E.L.T. 41 (P&H)
 
Issue:- Imported goods cleared to a unit of assessee other than registered under Customs (Import of Goods at Concessional Rate of Duty for manufacture of Excisable Goods) Rules, 1996 but used for intended purpose – whether benefit of concessional rate of duty can be denied
 
Brief Facts:- Respondents are manufacturer of colour picture tubes and is registered with the Central Excise Department under Rule 3 of the Customs (Import of Goods at Concessional Rate of Duty for manufacture of Excisable Goods) Rules, 1996 so as to enable it to import various inputs/raw material at the concessional rate of duty. Respondent is liable to pay excise duty under the provisions of Chapter sub-heading No. 5840.11. In order to avail the concessional rate of duty, the respondent have been executing bonds from time to time as required under Rule 4(3) of the Rules wherein an undertaking has been given by them to observe all the provisions of Rules of 1966 and of the Customs Act, 1962. 
 
Respondent imported various items vide different bills of Entry under Notification No. 13/97-Cus and 25/99-2000-Cus read with Rules of 1966. During audit, it was found that the respondent had not used the whole quantity of various goods imported at the concessional rate of duty but had removed certain imported items from its factory premises to another unit at Vadodara thereby, violating the provisions of the Rules of 1966 and had caused loss of custom duty to the exchequer. Show cause notices were issued to the respondent for recovery of the amount of custom duty along with interest and penalty.
 
The Adjudicating Authority confirmed the demand which was raised under Section 28 of the 1962 Act read with Rule 8 of the 1996 Rules and ordered recovery of the duty by enforcing the Bond executed under Rule 4 of the 1996 Rules. The respondent was also held liable to pay interest under Section 28AB. Penalty of the equal amount under Section 114A was also imposed.
 
Aggrieved by the said order, Respondent filed an appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals). The Commissioner (Appeal) set aside the order of Adjudicating Authority and allowed the appeal.
 
Revenue took the matter in appeal before the Tribunal. The Tribunal did not interfere with the findings of the Commissioner (Appeal) and dismissed the appeal. Aggrieved by the order of Tribunal, Revenue filed appeal before the High Court.
 
Reasoning of Judgement:- The High Court perused the order of the Commissioner (Appeals), wherein various factors were considered. The significant fact was that though the goods were purchased for use in the manufacture of colour picture tubes at their Mohali Unit, but due to closure of that unit, the respondent-company was not able to use the inputs and as such the same were diverted to their unit in Vadodra for the same purpose. This was done after giving proper intimation to the Department and the latter had never raised any objection to that being so done.
 
It was noted that the Tribunal also in its order had held that the only failure on the part of the importer was that it did not use the imported inputs in the factory premises registered with the Jurisdictional Assistant Commissioner, in terms of Rules 3 and 4 of the 1996 Rules and instead used the same for the intended purpose, in another unit of its factory with the approval of the Department. The Tribunal also found that the respondent cannot be denied a substantial benefit for its failure to follow a procedural condition condoned by the department.
 
The High Court found that the concurrent findings of fact by the Commissioner (Appeal) and the Tribunal were based on record and appreciation of all relevant considerations. No error or perversity found in the approach adopted by the Appellate Authorities warranting interference by this Court. No substantial question of law arises. 
 
Decision:- Appeals dismissed. 

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

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