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 LAW/13-14/2064

Classification of ‘Qatar LSC Crude oil’.

Case:-M/s ESSAR OIL LTD T SRINIVAS Vs COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, JAMNAGAR

Citation:-2013-TIOL-1553-CESTAT-AHM

Brief Facts:-These stay application have been filed against OIO No.11/Commissioner/2012 dated 28/02/2013, passed by Commissioner of Customs, Jamnagar. The issue involved in this case is regarding the correct classification of 61683.178 MT of imported cargo declared as 'Qatar LSC Crude Oil', (QLSC), whether under 27090000 or under 27101990. Appellants M/s. Essar Oil Limited claimed the classification under 27090000 as 'Qatar Low Sulphur Condensate (crude oil)'. Samples of the imported cargo were drawn on 30/12/2009 and sent for chemical test. In its first test report dated 29/01/2010, Chemical Examiner, Custom House Laboratory, Kandla reported, inter-alia, that sample is in the form of a pale yellow oily liquid and is composed of mixture of mineral Hydrocarbon oils flashing below 25 C. It was also mentioned by the Chemical Examiner that it is other than Petroleum crude oil and that the literature etc. of the consignment may be submitted for further examination. The provisional assessments were finalized, as per letter F No.VIII/48-4/FIN/2003 Pt. III dated 25/02/2010, by Superintendent of Customs, Custom House Vadinar; after receipt of first chemical test report dated 15/01/2010. By a further report dated 15/06/2010, Chemical Examiner, Custom House, Kandla Laboratory; after going through the literature furnished by the Custom House, Vadinar certified the cargo to be Crude Petroleum Condensate classifiable under 2709 of HSN. On query from DRI by a further letter dated 05/08/2010, Chemical Examiner finally gave an opinion that from the tests conducted by them the exact nature of cargo cannot be conclusively inferred.

Appellant Contention:-The appellants argued that as per the contract entered between Essar Oil Ltd. and seller Vitol Asia Sulphur Condensate (QLSC) the port of QLSC of delivery is RAS LAFFAN, State of Qatar. The price agreed is comparable to the low quality QLSC crude oil prevalent at the relevant time. As per the certificate of quality furnished by Dolphin Energy Ltd. the product type is Qatar LSC. Shri Jain also relied upon a report dated 8/10/1999 of the World Customs Organization Harmonized System Committee (24th Session) on classification of 'Gas Condensate' and argued that as per this committee report also there is no practical way of distinguishing between the similar products of heading 27.09 & 27.10.

Respondent Contention:-Respondenthas given a clear-cut opinion that the cargo imported by the appellant is refined product of CTD 27.10 and accordingly demand has been correctly confirmed and penalties rightly imposed upon the appellant.

Reasoning of Decision:-It is the case of the Revenue that as per the chemical test reports of the Chemical Examiner, Kandla, the imported cargo in the present case was a refined product of CTH 27.10. However, on careful examination of the said reports/opinions given by the Chemical Examiner, Kandla, it is seen that the said test reports/opinions made by the Kandla, Laboratory are not the conclusive opinion on the classification of the cargo imported by the appellant. Further in view of the report dated 8/10/1999, of the Harmonized System Committee of World Customs Organization, on classification of 'Gas Condensates' also the chemical composition and physical characteristics of gas condensate of CTH 27.09 and similar synthetic products of CTH 27.10 are very similar and over-lapping. It is further expressed by the committee in this report that there is no practical way of distinguishing between the two groups of product. Appellant has reasonably explained with the help of contracts, value of comparable goods, journals and other literature available on the subject that imported cargo is Qatar Low Sulphur Condensate (crude oil). The assessments of the imported cargo were also finalized by the assessing officer on 25/02/2010 after receipt of the first test report from Chemical Examiner, Kandla. The order finalizing the provisional assessments has not been appealed against by the Revenue. Appellants have, therefore, made out a prima-facie case for complete waiver of confirmed duties and penalties.

Decision:-Stay granted.

Comment:-The essence of this case is that when a product is of such a nature that it is capable of being classified under more than one sub-headings, the classification should be resorted to keeping in mind the literature, contracts and journals available and not by merely relying on the chemical test report wherein there is also no clear cut classification of the said goods. As the importer furnished sufficient and appropriate evidences in support of their classification, stay application was 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