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/2015-16/2572

Conversion of shipping bill from DEEC to DEPB Scheme.

Case:-UNI DERITEND LTD. VERSUS COMMR. OF CUS. (EXPORT), MUMBAI

Citation:-2014(306) E.L.T. 669 (TRI.-MUMBAI)

Brief Facts:-The appellants are in appeal against the impugned order denying conversion of shipping bills filed for obligation under the EPCG scheme to DEPB scheme.
 
Appellant Contentions:-  The learned Counsel for the appellant submits that conversion has been denied by relying on the Board’s Circular No. 4/2004-Cus., dated 16-1-2004 and the provisions to the Section 149 of the Customs Act, 1962. In fact, as per the Board’s Circular No. 36/2010-Cus., dated 23-9-2010, the provisions were liberalized. Therefore, they are entitled for conversion. To support his contention he placed reliance in the case of Diamond Engineering (Chennai) Pvt. Ltd. v. CC, Chennai - 2013 (288) E.L.T. 265 (Tri.-Mad.).
 
Respondent Contentions:-On the other hand the learned AR strongly opposed the contention of the learned Counsel and submits that in the shipping bills the appellant has not mentioned the PMV therefore, the adjudicating authority has rightly denied the conversion of the shipping bills from EPCG scheme to DEPB scheme. To support his contention he placed reliance on the decision of this Tribunal in the case of Actavis Pharma Manufacturing Pvt. Ltd. v. CC, Chennai - 2012 (279) E.L.T. 517 (Tri.-Chennai).
 
Reasoning of Judgment:-Considered the submissions made by both the sides.
The case law relied on by the learned AR is not relevant to the facts of this case as in that case free shipping bill was filed by the assessee and requested for conversion of the said free shipping bill to DEPB shipping bill. Therefore, this Tribunal arrived at a decision as there was no declaration of PMV by the assessee therefore, conversion was not allowed. But in the case of Diamond Engineering (Chennai) Pvt. Ltd.(supra) this Tribunal has examined the decision of Actavis Pharma Manufacturing Pvt. Ltd.(supra) relied upon by the learned AR and considered the fact of the case are not similar as in that case shipping bills were filed for the conversion of the shipping bills from Advance Licence Scheme to DEPB Scheme. In this case the facts are of similar to the facts of Diamond Engineering (Chennai) Pvt. Ltd. As the assessee sought conversion from DEEC scheme to DEPB scheme and examination level in both the situation are similar. Therefore, on the basis of the document produced at the time of export the adjudicating authority should have allowed the conversion. As those documents have not been examined by the adjudicating authority therefore, the matter needs examination at the end of the adjudicating authority to verify the fact that for conversion from EPCG scheme to DEPB scheme the export documents are sufficient to grant conversion or not. The adjudicating authority is directed to act accordingly and pass an appropriate order in accordance with law.
The appeal is allowed in these terms by way of remand.
 
Decision:-Appeal Allowed.

Comment:-The crux of this case is that free shipping bill cannot be converted into DEBP shipping bill if there is no declaration of PMV as held in the case of Actavis Pharma Manufacturing Pvt. Ltd. However, in the present case, assessee sought conversion of Shipping Bill from DEEC to DEPB Scheme and therefore adjudicating authority should have allowed the conversion for the same because the conversion was allowed in the case of Diamond Engineering (Chennai) Pvt. Ltd.

Prepared by: Hushen Ganodwala

Post a Comment
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