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/2014-15/2368

Can an assessee file declaration for Drawback later on after clearance of the goods for export from the port without any such reasons which are under his control ?

Case:-COMMSIIOSNER OF CUSTOMS, VISAKHAPATNAM  Versus  CARGIL INDIA PVT. LTD.

Citation:-2014 (299) E.L.T. 290 (A.P.)

Brief fact:- This appeal is directed against an order dated 23-12-2009 passed by the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, South Zonal Bench, Bangalore in appeal No. C/81/2009 [2010 (258) E.L.T. 298 (Tribunal)].
The assessee had filed 14 shipping Bills for export of soyabean meal through Visakhapatnam Port to Vietnam and Japan. The shipping bills were filed between 8-11-2007 and 23-1-2008. 3. While filing the shipping bills, the assessee did not claim any draw-back of duty under the Customs, Central Excise Duties and Service Tax Draw-back Rules, 1995 (for short 'the Rules'). In other words, the assessee filed free shipping bills for export. 4. Much later, on 6-8-2008 the assessee made an application to the Commissioner of Customs for converting the free shipping bills into drawback shipping bills. During the course of submissions before the Commissioner in this regards reliance was placed by the assessee on Rule 12(1)(a) of the Rules. This Rule reads as under:
"RULE 12. Statement/Declaration to be made on exports other than by Post.– (1) In the case of exports other than by post, the exporters shall at the time of export of the goods:
(a)    state on the shipping bill or bill of export, the description, quantity and such other particulars as are necessary for deciding whether the goods are entitled to drawback, and if so, at what rate or rates and make a declaration on the relevant shipping bill or bill of export that - .
(i)            a claim for drawback under these rules is being made;
 
(ii)           in respect of duties of Customs and Central Excise paid on the containers, packing materials and materials and the service tax paid on the input services used in the manufacture of the export goods on which drawback is being claimed, no separate claim for rebate of duty or service tax under the Central Excise Rules, 2002 or any other law has been or will be made to the Central Excise authorities :
Provided that if the Commissioner of Customs is satisfied that the exporter or his authorized agent has, for reasons beyond his control , failed to comply with the provisions of this clause, he may, after considering the representation, if any, made by such exporter or his authorized agent, and for reasons to be recorded, exempt such exporter or his authorized agent from the provisions of this clause."
 
The Commissioner considered the request of the assessee and came to the conclusion by his order dated 24-10-2008 that the assessee had not been able to give any explanation "for reasons beyond his. Control "for not making a drawback claim at the time of filing the shipping bills. The Commissioner also relied upon Circular No. 4/2004, dated 16-1-2004 issued by the Central Board of Excise and Customs which stated that the Commissioner may examine and consider individual requests on merits and facts. Applying the provisions of the circular, the Commissioner came to the conclusion that since the goods had been exported and were not subject to any physical examination, the request for converting the free shipping bills into drawback shipping bills could not be acceded to. Under the circumstances, the claim of the assessee was rejected by the Commissioner. Feeling aggrieved, the assessee preferred an appeal before the Tribunal and that appeal was allowed by the order under challenge.

Appellant’s contention:-

Respondent’s contention:-

Reasoning of judgment:- They have heard learned counsel for the parties and are of the opinion that the following substantial question of law arises for consideration :-
“Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal was justified in law in allowing the assessee to convert the free shipping bills into drawback shipping bills notwithstanding the provisions of Rule 12(1)(a) of the Customs, Central Excise Duties and Service Tax Drawback Rules, 1995?”
In their opinion, the answer to the aforesaid substantial question of law must be in the negative, in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee.
A plain reading of the Rules, particularly Rule 12(1)(a) makes it very clear that conversion of a free shipping bill can be allowed into a drawback shipping bill only if the assessee is able to satisfy the Commissioner that "for reasons beyond his control", drawback was not claimed. In the instant case, there is nothing on record to suggest that the claim for duty drawback was beyond the control of the assessee. All that has been stated by the assessee is that it was not aware of the correct legal position and, therefore, it did not make the claim for duty drawback in the first instance.
 Apart from the fact that the aforesaid explanation is not satisfactory, Theyfind that the assessee did not make any claim for duty drawback for as many as eight months even after the shipping bills were filed. It is quite clear that the assessee made the claim for duty drawback only as an afterthought. There were no reasons beyond its control for making the claim for duty drawback earlier.
In view of the above, in their opinion, the Tribunal was in error in allowing the appeal filed by the assessee and directing the conversion of the free shipping bills filed by the assessee into drawback shipping bills. It is also submitted by learned Senior Counsel for the assessee that even otherwise, the assessee has a right to have the free shipping bills converted into drawback shipping bills. They cannot agree with this submission for the simple reason that Rule 12(1)(a) of the Rules provides that conversion is permissible only if the assessee is able to give satisfactory reasons to suggest that at the initial stage, duty drawback was not claimed for reasons beyond its control. The assessee has not been able to furnish any such reason and, therefore, Theyare not inclined to accept the submission made in this regard by learned Senior Counsel for the assessee. Under the circumstances, the order passed by the Tribunal is aside and the appeal filed by the Revenue is allowed. The miscellaneous application is also disposed of.

Decision:-Appeal allowed.

Comment:- The law is very clear on the terms of claiming the drawback once the export has been done. It clearly states that an assessee can convert the free shipping bill into a drawback shipping bill only if he is able to convince the designated authority that the drawback claim was not filed due to reasons beyond his control.  In this particular case, the assessee was not able to prove the same and thus he was rightly denied the drawback claim.

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