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/2012-13/1523

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