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/2012-13/1098

Cenvat Credit of duty paid on packing & forwarding charges collected in respect of inputs

Case: EVEREADY INDUSTRIES INDIA LTD V/S COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, ALLAHABAD
 
Citation:2000 (120) ELT 379 (TRIBUNAL)
 
Issue:- Whether Modvat credit is available in respect of duty paid on packing and forwarding charges collected in respect of inputs?
 
Brief Facts:- Appellant manufacture Torches, flashlights and avail of Modvat credit under Rule 57A in respect of aluminium brass and plastics, steel sheets and other raw materials; and they also availed capital goods credit under Rule 57-Q of the Central Excise Rules, 1944.
 
The Assistant Commissioner under adjudication order dated 27-8-1996 disallowed the Modvat credit on packing and forwarding charges holding that the Appellants have not made it known to the Department that whether the items brought in by them are generally supplied with or without packing.
 
In appeal, the Commissioner (Appeals) confirmed the Adjudication Order holding that since the packing charges are charged separately and on selected basis these are neither inputs nor capital goods.
 
Hence, appellant are in appeal before the Tribunal.
 
Appellant’s Contention: - Appellantsubmitted that under the Modvat scheme for allowance of credit on inputs no rule conferred any power on the Central Excise officers having jurisdiction over the factory of manufacturing final products to re-assess the duty on inputs received for use in or in relation to the manufacture of the final products. They relied upon the decision in the case of Kerala State Electronic Corporation vs. C.C.E., Cochin [1996 (84) E.L.T. 44 and in the case of Tata Oil Mills Co. Ltd. v. C.C.E., Cochin [1997 (91) E.L.T. 144 (T).
 
Reasoning of Judgment:- The Tribunal held that Rule 57-A of the Central Excise Rules provides for availment of Modvat credit of the duty paid on the inputs which are used in or in relation to the manufacture of final product. Explanation to Rule 57A provides that the inputs does not include packing materials, the cost of which is not included in the assessable value of the final product under Section 4 of the Central Excise Act concerned. The Tribunal found that it is not the case of the Revenue that value of the packaging material was not included in the assessable value so as to attract the exclusion clause provided in the explanation to the Rule 57A of the Central Excise Rules.
 
It was noted that Appellants have availed of Modvat credit of duty which was paid as per the duty paying documents. As held by the Tribunal in the case of Kerala State Electronic Corporation it is not open to the Central Excise Officer at the end of the appellants to reassess duty on the inputs received for the purpose of Modvat credit. It was held in Kerala State Electronic Corporation case that "if the duty paid on the inputs is found to be short or in excess of what is payable under the law, the resort can be had at the suppliers end under the provisions of Section 11A and 11B of the Central Excise and Salt Act as the case may be by way of demand by the Authority or refund claimed by the supplier....... So far as taking up of Modvat credit at the time of receipt of the goods is concerned the same is permissible to the extent specified in the duty paying document under which goods have been received."
 
Thus, it was held that Modvat credit is available to the Appellants in respect of duty paid on the packing and forwarding charges.
 
Decision:- Appeal allowed.

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