Chartered Accountant
Bookmark and Share
click here to subscribe our newsletter
 
 
Corporate News *  Dept. Can’t Classify Product as Zarda Scented Tobacco After Repeatedly Approving It As Chewing Tobacco: CESTAT *  Mere Uploading Of GST Order On Portal Is Not “Valid” Service: Tripura HC *  CGST Can Proceed Even If SGST Closed Similar Case Earlier: Delhi HC *  SC upholds 28% GST on online gaming with retrospective effect. *  West Bengal Govt cuts E-way Bill Threshold limit to Rs. 50,000 for intra-state goods movement. *  Criminal Prosecution Under Central Excise Act Can’t Continue After CESTAT Sets Aside Duty Demand on Merits: Punjab & Haryana High Court. *  Madras High Court Quashes GST Assessment Orders for Denial of Personal Hearing; Remands Matter Subject to 10% Deposit *  Ex Parte GST Order: Madras High Court Directs Immediate Removal of Bank/ITC Attachment Upon 25% Deposit *  J.K. Cement Receives GST Demand Order of Rs 8,02,113/- from Ahmedabad Tax Authority *  Delhi Police EOW Busts Alleged Rs. 128 Crore GST Fake Invoice Network. *  REPLY TO SCN CAN’T BE TREATED AS “EMPTY FORMALITY”: ORISSA HIGH COURT QUASHES GST DEMAND OF RS. 57.30 LAKH *  Challenge to CGST Provisions restricting ITC to Bonafide Purchasers : Allahabad HC issues notice *  CBIC Notifies Revised Customs Tariff Values for Edible Oils, Gold, Silver, Brass Scrap and Areca Nuts *  Delhi HC Orders Removal of GST Attachment After Statutory 1 Year Period Expired *  GSTAT Extends Relaxed Appeal Filing Guidelines till December 31, 2026 *  AO fails to Provide Import - Export Data from DGFT to Taxpayer for Reconciliation *  Gold, Silver Imports To Get Costlier As Govt Raises Customs Duty To 10%  *  GSTAT Enables Pre-Payment Access to Document Upload and Checklist for GST Appeal Filing *  GST Portal Restrictions Can’t Override Statute: Gujarat HC Allows Cross-State Transfer Of CGST ITC After Amalgamation *  Centre Revises HS Codes for Large Diameter Steel Pipes Used in Oil & Gas Pipelines *  Customs Duty Liability Arises On Warehouse Clearance Date: Supreme Court *  Government lifts export ban on de-oiled rice bran *  CESTAT Grants 12% Interest on Pre-Deposit for Investigation from Date of Deposit till Refund and Denies Interest on Interest. *  Government Overhauls GST Classification Framework for Non-Alcoholic Beverages; Fruit Juice Drinks, Milk-Based Beverages and Caffeinated Drinks to Attract Revised 5% and 40% GST Rates from May 1, 2026 *  India’s gross GST collections hit a record Rs 2.42 lakh crore in April, up 8.7% *  Customs clearance stalled, revenue hit over MRP dispute *  Shipping Corporation explores Middle East routes as Hormuz tensions disrupt cargo movement *  India, Kenya signs MoU for exchange of pre-arrival customs information *  No demand of Taxes under Reverse Charge if Tax Already Discharged by Service Provider under forward charge *  The India-New Zealand Free Trade Agreement, signed "once-in-a-generation" deal that eliminates tariffs on 100% of Indian exports to New Zealand
Subject News *  Consignment Sales Can’t Be Reclassified as Inter-State Sales Based on Pre-Agreement Evidence: CESTAT *  Exporter Can’t Be Denied Advance Authorization Benefit Due To ICEGATE Technical Glitch: Delhi High Court *  No GST Demand For Mere Wrong Set-Off Of IGST Credit Under CGST And SGST Heads: Kerala HC. *  Cenvat Credit Can’t Be Denied on Input Services Having Nexus With Manufacturing Activities: CESTAT *  Pending Proceedings Can’t Survive Without Saving Clause: Calcutta High Court Quashes GST Demand of Rs. 6.28 Crore After Omission of Rule 96(10) *  Madras HC Quashes GST Demands on TASMAC (Tamil Nadu State Marketing Corporation) Bar Licence Fee *  GST Proceedings Cannot Survive Omitted Rule Without Saving Clause: Calcutta HC *  Provisional Release Can’t Be Denied Solely On Dept. Suspicion Of Misclassification And Undervaluation Of Imported Goods: CESTAT *  Businesses Should Not Be Kept Outside GST Regime Without Due Process: Gauhati High Court *  Punjab & Haryana HC Directs Reconsideration of Contractors’ Claim for Additional GST Payment After Tax Rate Hike From 12% to 18% *  S. 108 Statements Can’t Be Sole Basis Without Following Section 138B Procedure: CESTAT *  Bombay High Court Frames Key Questions on Mandatory Distribution of ITC U/s 20 CGST Act *  Filing of Annexure-B for Refund Applications involving Accumulated ITC using the offline utility in GST portal: GSTN *  No Service Tax on Parent Company’s Un-Invoiced Cost Allocations Without Actual Service or Consideration: CESTAT  *  Calcutta High Court Upholds GST Classification of Polypropylene Leno Bags as Plastic Products *  DRC-01 Summary Can’t Replace Mandatory SCN: Gauhati High Court *  GSTAT Issues Major Bench Allocation Framework; All Appeals to First Go Before Division Bench *  ITC Blocking Without Reasoned Order Violates Rule 86A; Punjab & Haryana HC Directs Release of Credit *  Allahabad HC Refuses Bail to CGST Superintendent In Rs. 70 Lakh Bribery Case *  S.130 Can’t Be Invoked Without Prior Tax Determination U/s 73/74: Allahabad High Court Quashes GST Confiscation Proceedings *  SC grants Bail to Rs 54cr GST case  *  Karnataka HC Sets Aside Duplicate GST Orders, Orders Fresh Hearing on GSTIN Cancellation *  DRC-01 Summary Can’t Replace Mandatory SCN: Gauhati High Court *  Transfer Of Unutilized ITC After Amalgamation - Supreme Court Issues Notice *  PUNJAB & HARYANA HC QUASHES GST CANCELLATION NOTICE FOR FAILURE TO PROVIDE CBIC ENQUIRY REPORT *  LICENSE FEE, TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE CHARGES NOT INCLUDIBLE IN CUSTOMS VALUE UNLESS THEY ARE A CONDITION OF SALE: CESTAT *  DELHI HC ORDERS REMOVAL OF GST ATTACHMENT AFTER STATUTORY 1 YEAR PERIOD EXPIRED *  CUSTOMS BROKER CAN’T BE FAULTED JUST BECAUSE EXPORTER’S GST REGISTRATION WAS PREVIOUSLY CANCELLED: CESTAT   *  Supreme Court Dismisses Review Plea Against Delhi HC Ruling Holding Real Operator Behind Fake GST Firms Liable As ‘Taxable Person  *  GST Appeal Can’t Be Rejected Merely Because DRC-07 Was Not Uploaded On Portal: Bombay High Court  

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