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 Laws/2012-13/1523

Denial of benefit of SFIS scheme when imported goods are received after expiry date of authorization certificate.

Case: - P. S. G. STEEL PVT. LTD. Versus UNION OF INDIA

Citation: - 2013 (288) E.L.T. 338 (Del.)

Brief Facts: -The Appellant claims a direction in the nature of mandamus to the first respondent to issue in­structions to revalidate its scrip which entitled it to customs duty concessions for a period of six months in terms of Serve From India Scheme (SFIS). The benefici­aries of that policy, like the Appellant are entitled to exemption from customs duty in respect of capital goods imported during the period of the scrip's au­thorization. In this case, the scrip was issued to the Appellant on 15-4-2009 and was valid in terms of the scheme till 30-4-2011. The Appellant, who had availed of the facility of the customs duty exemption in terms of the SFIS, had apparently entered into contract for pur­chase of certain equipment from Italy on 18-4-2011. The goods were shipped on 18-4-2011 from Antwerp and landed at the Inland Container Depot, Faridabad on 26-5-2011. By this time, the validity of the scrip had expired (on 30-4-2011). The Appellant was, therefore, required to pay duty. It is urged that the Appellant was asked to seek revalidation of the scrip under the SFIS which it did. Apparently, the request for revalidation was turned down by the Policy Relaxation Committee (PRC) on 29-8-2011.
 
Appellant Contention:- The Appellant contended that the shipment ought to have been cleared duty free as the valid­ity in terms of the said advertisement would extend till that time the goods landed.
 
Respondent Contention: - The Respondent contended that terms of the scrip were clear as was evident from the reading of the Handbook of Procedure. In response, it is further argued that the validity period and revalidation is in terms of paragraph 3.11.7 which reads as follows:-
"3.11.7 Duty Credit scrip shall be valid for a period of 24 months. Revali­dation of Duty Credit scrip shall not be permitted unless covered under paragraph 2.13.1 or paragraph 2.13.2A of HBP v1."
Counsel also relies upon paragraph 2.13.1 which is in the following terms :-
"However, revalidation of freely transferable Authorization/Duty credit scrips and stock and sale Authorization shall not be permitted unless valid­ity has expired while in custody of Customs authority/RA."

Reasoning of Judgment: -We have considered the both sided parties. The terms of the SFIS and the authorization issued under it were clear i.e. that the benefits could be availed for the period of two years. In case of shipment on high seas, the policy provided the extension of concession if the validity period lapsed when the shipment had landed at any Indian port. In other words, in the present case, if the goods had reached in the India by the date of expiry of the authorization i.e. 30-4-2011, the Appellant could have qualified for extension to facilitate their clearance. However, such was not the case. The goods in fact reached on 26-5- 2011, a fact known to the Appellant when it booked them after entering into con­tract with the foreign supplier, on 18-4-2011. Having regard to these circum­stances, the respondents' action directing payment of full duty and refusal to give the benefit cannot be characterized as unreasonable. It was brought to the notice of the Court that the order of the Policy Relaxation Committee (PRC) is appealable under Section 15 of the Foreign Trade Development Act, 1992 to the Central Government. This Court is of the opinion that the Appellant should be permitted to avail of that remedy. In case there is any delay, the said authority shall consider the appeal on its merits provided the Appellant approaches it within a period of two weeks from today. In view of the above conclusions, this Court is of the opinion that the relief claimed cannot be granted. The Writ Petition is accordingly dismissed but subject to the above directions.
 
Decision: -Appeal Dismissed.

Comment:- The analogy drawn from this case is that benefit of concessional duty under SFIS is not available when the imported goods reached India after the expiry of authorisation certificate. However, extension could have been granted if the goods reached India on the expiry date itself which was not the case.
 

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