Chartered Accountant
Bookmark and Share
click here to subscribe our newsletter
 
 
Corporate News *  GST registration cancellation without reasons amounts to ‘Economic Death’ of business: Supreme Court. *  No GST refund if appeal before GSTAT is filed late: Gujarat High Court. *  Mere upload of GST notice on portal not valid service, appeal limitation won’t start: Punjab & Haryana High Court. *  Taxpayer can’t be penalised for missing notices hidden under ‘Additional Notices/Orders’: Calcutta High Court allows fresh adjudication. *  State tax officer can’t issue GST SCN beyond CBIC-assigned jurisdiction: Bombay High Court stays recovery proceedings. *  Earlier 7.5% Pre-Deposit must count towards mandatory 10% for Appeal: Uttarakhand high court quashes CESTAT Order. *  Third Parties can’t challenge GST Advance Rulings merely due to financial impact: Karnataka HC *  GST SCN generated using AI tool quashed: Punjab & Haryana High Court *  Bank Attachment Quashed as Madras HC Quashes GST Order Issued Against Deceased Person *  ITC Blocking Order for Failure to Record ‘Reason to Believe’ U/R 86A Quashed: Allahabad High Court *  Govt Extends GSTAT Appeal Filing Deadline From 30 June to July 31, 2026 *  GST Demand on RWA Stayed: Allahabad High Court Questions Taxability of Electricity Distribution to Flat Owners *  CBIC Clarifies Jurisdiction After GST Registration Transfer: Earlier Proceedings Remain Valid, New Officer to Continue Action *  GST authorities’ certification not mandatory for reimbursement, but tax payment must be proven: Karnataka HC *  Contractor can’t seek gst reimbursement through writ when contract has arbitration clause: Karnataka HC *  Unsigned Order Is No Order in Law: AP HC Quashes GST Assessment Order for Want of Officer’s Signature *  Customs Can’t Levy Rs. 1.36 Crore Cost Recovery Charges Without Proof of Full-Day Officer Deployment: CESTAT  *  12% IGST Payable On Imported Dialysis Machine Parts: CESTAT *  Bombay High Court Admits Challenge to GST Limitation Extension Notifications; Grants Protection Against Coercive Recovery *  Criminal Case Can’t Run Parallel to GST Proceedings on Same Facts: Allahabad High Court *  Allahabad High Court Stays GST Detention Order; Directs Release of Vehicle and Goods on Deposit of Rs. 1.44 Lakh *  Service Tax Can’t Be Levied on Loss-Making Contracts: Gujarat High Court *  GSTN Mandates Ship-to GSTIN in e-Invoice and e-Way Bill APIs; Introduces Voluntary e-Way Bill Closure Facility from August 1, 2026 *  GST Appeal Can’t Be Rejected as Time-Barred When Taxpayer Was Pursuing Rectification Remedy: Telangana High Court *  Absence of E-Way Bill and Transport Documents Justifies Customs Seizure U/s 110: Gauhati HC *  Madras High Court Upholds GST Late Fee and Penalty for Non-Filing of Annual Return, Dismisses Challenge  *  GST Records, Purchase Documents Sufficient to Discharge Burden Under Customs Act: CESTAT Orders Release of 3.65 Kg Gold  *  No Sugar Cess Payable on Sugar Exported Out of India: CESTAT *  Road Construction Services Exempt and SCN Time-Barred: CESTAT Quashes Service Tax Demand Based Solely on Form 26AS  *  ITC Freeze Upheld After GST Dept Find Suppliers Were Allegedly Fake Bill-Trading Entities: Madras HC 
Subject News *  Input service benefits can’t be denied: CESTAT allows export refund despite MMTC acting as Canalising agency. *  No service tax demand without proof of service of SCN: CESTAT. *  Service tax demand quashed as dept. fails to prove service of SCN: CESTAT *  GST : Mere allegation of inadequate consideration of reply not enough to invoke writ jurisdiction: Delhi High Court *  Onerous conditions imposed for provisional release of seized imported goods shouldn’t amount to virtual denial of relief: CESTAT. *  GST SCN without alleging fraud cannot invoke sec. 74: Karnataka High Court quashes adjudication order. *  Extended Limitation Can’t Be Invoked Merely on Form 26AS Data: CESTAT *  Revenue-Sharing with Restaurants Not Taxable as Business Support Service: CESTAT *  R. 6(3) Option Can’t Be Forced on Taxpayer; CESTAT Quashes Rs. 12.36 Crore CENVAT Credit Demand *  Excise Duty | Power Consumption Alone Can’t Prove Clandestine Manufacture: Karnataka High Court *  Madras High Court Examines DGGI’s Authority to Issue GST Penalty Orders Under Section 122, Adds DGGI as Party *  Proceedings under omitted r. 96(10) can’t survive without saving clause: andhra pradesh high court quashes gst refund recovery *  Excise duty power consumption alone can’t prove clandestine manufacture: karnataka high court *  Madras high court rules GST show cause notices must disclose grounds for invoking extended limitation *  Court Can’t Direct Extension GST Return Deadlines or Waive Interest and Penalties: Karnataka High Court *  GST Notifications Can’t Go Beyond GST Council Recommendations: Madras High Court Quashes SCN on Branded Pulses *  Appeal Can’t Be Dismissed for Delay When Dept’s Own Order Mis-states Limitation Period: CESTAT *  No Evidence of KYC or Due Diligence Breach By Customs Broker: CESTAT Quashes Licence Revocation in Export Overvaluation Case *  Glucometers Are Chemical Analysis Instruments Classifiable Under Tariff Heading 9027: CESTAT *  Validity of Post-GST Service Tax Proceedings Upheld: Gujarat High Court Dismisses Challenge to S. 73 SCN *  Rectified GST Refund Applications Can’t Be Rejected as Time-Barred If Original Refund Claim Was Filed Within Limitation: Gujarat HC *  Service Tax Refund Can’t Be Denied as Time-Barred When Levy Itself Is Unconstitutional: Gujarat High Court *  Same Officer Can’t Act As Auditor & Adjudicator: Karnataka High Court *  Karnataka High Court Condones 324-Day Delay, Revives Customs Appeal in Jewellery Pilferage Case  *  Madras High Court Quashes GST Assessment Order Passed Ex Parte Despite Prior ITC Reversal; Lifts Bank Attachment *  Tobacco Process Doesn’t Amount to Manufacturing: Madras High Court Quashes Rs. 1.32 Crore Compensation Cess Demand  *  Recovery Notice Unsustainable After Voluntary Reversal of Unutilised Credit: CESTAT  *  GST | ‘System Generated’ SCN Without Officer Details Invalid: Allahabad HC  *  Electronic Records Without Statutory Certification Requirements Can’t Justify Undervaluation Allegations: CESTAT *  Madras High Court Stays GST Order, Finds Prima Facie Merit in Plea Against S. 74 Proceedings Based on S. 73 Intimation  

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