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/2010-11/1168

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