Chartered Accountant
Bookmark and Share
click here to subscribe our newsletter
 
 
Corporate News *  The GSTN has issued an Advisory dated 21.04.2026 about the introduction of an Offline Tool for the Invoice Management System (IMS)  *  CBIC extends due dates for filing of FORM GSTR 3B  for the month of April 2026 *  Interest cannot be imposed in adjudication order, if not demanded/quantified in show cause notice : Allahabad HC *  Wheelchairs with toileting facility eligible for exemption: CESTAT affirms customs duty exemption to importer *  Industries urge GST council to allow inverted duty refunds on input services *  Tamil Nadu GST dept introduced virtual hearing facility for GST appeals under under section 107 of the TNGST act: detailed guidelines  *  CIC urges authorities to implement GST evasion complaint tracking system *  Even if the assessee opts "NO" for personal hearing in form DRC-06 ,The mandatory requirement under section 75(4) to grant opportunity of hearing cannot be waived:Gujarat High Court  *  Glufosinate imports curbs imposed by govt *  Government extends Re-import period for exported cut & polished diamonds *  CIC flags lack of tracking system for tax evasion complaints,urges GST authorities to improve transparency *  No Custodial Interrogation needed in GST fraud case based on documentary evidence already in Department's Possession : Chattisgarh HC *  Orders under section cannot be sustained if passed without considering the taxpayer's objections and without granting a personal hearing:Gujarat High Court *  Mere cancellation of supplier's registration cannot,by itself,justify denial of ITC or cancellation of the recipient's registration:Bombay High Court *  High Court sets aside GST notice citing factual errors and natural justice violations *  Provisional Bank Attachment under Section. 110 of Customs Act Unsustainable Beyond Statutory period without Extension order: Bombay HC orders to defreeze accounts *  Post Clearance MRP Alteration by Distributor Does not attract Differential Customs Duty: CESTAT *  DGFT Expands scope of 'Screws' classification under RoDTEP Scheme  *  E-way bills surze to all time high of 140.6 million in March *  GST Exemption Allowed on Pure Labour Services for Standalone Houses: AAR  *  GST Payable Only on Margin in Second-Hand Car Sales, Subject to Strict Conditions and No ITC Claim: AAR *  DGFT rolls out procedure for allocation of calcined coke *  GST portal update : Pre-deposit amount now editable in Appeals *  J&K HC declared TMT scrap a 'Specified Good' eligibile for GST refunds under Support Scheme  *  Pigmy agents are employees of banks; no GST can be levied on commission  paid to them : Karnataka HC *  DGFT Revises HS Code Description for Screws Under RoDTEP *  GST Registration Cancellation Invalid Without Proper Service of Notice: Allahabad High Court. *  Bengaluru CGST | GST Backlog Appeals Deadline Fixed at June 30, 2026 *  No Time Bar on Refund of Service Tax for Services Not Rendered: CESTAT  Remands Indiabulls Case for Unjust Enrichment Check. *  Supreme Court Holds Renewable Energy Incentive Must Benefit Generators, Not Be Adjusted in Tariff
Subject News *   Delhi HC Quashes Order, Says Reminder Cannot Validate Improperly Served GST SCN *  KARNATAKA HIGH COURT REMANDS GST SHORTFALL MATTER DUE TO ABSENCE OF PERSONAL HEARING   *  CESTAT cancels confiscation and penalties on imported computer cabinet cases: Custom duty restricted to 111 surplus units *  Deposit of tax during search or investigation cannot be treated as 'Voluntary Payment' : Bombay High Court *  Section 76 of the CGST cannot be invoked where the tax has already been duly deposited, even if through another registration of the same entity: Madras High Court *  Sec 74 allows use of material regardless of source; illegality or flaws in section 67 search do not vitiate valid adjudication: HC *  Inter-State transfer of ITC on Amalgamation permissible as given under section 18(3) read with rule 41 of the CGST rules, 2017: Gujarat High Court *  HC: No GST on commisson paid to Pigmy Agents *  IGST refund denial on illegible bill of lading invalid absent chance to furnish docs; merit reconsideration in appeals directed: HC *  ITC is not admissible on GST paid on leasehold rights of land used fpr setting up an air seperation plant: AAAR,Tamil Nadu *  GST: No penalty under Section 74 after voluntary ITC reversal due to non-existent supplier : High Court *  TN AAAR denies GST ITC on Land Lease under Sec. 17(5)(d) for setting up plant and machinery *  GST proceedings quashed as notices sent to old address, despite updated address in registration *  Importer Can’t Be Penalised for Alleged IGCR Procedural Lapses Without Evidence of Departmental Error: CESTAT *  Structured Healthcare Training Not ‘Charitable Activity’, 18% GST Payable: AAR  *  CESTAT As The Appellate Authority For Central Sales Tax Disputes: A Paradigm Shift Under Finance Act, 2023 *   Rs. 25K Cost Imposed On SGST Joint Commissioner for Attaching Bank  Accounts Without Forming Mandatory “Opinion”: Bombay HC *   Ex-Parte GST Order Without Hearing Violates Natural Justice: Karnataka  High Court Quashes Adjudication and Bank Attachment.  *   Retrospective GST Cancellation Can’t Invalidate Genuine Transactions:  Jaipur Commissioner (Appeals) Quashes Rs. 95,670 ITC Demand. *   GST Pre-Deposit Non-Compliance: Allahabad High Court Allows Appeal  Subject to Rs. 30 Lakh Balance Deposit, Recognises Offline Filing. *  Documentary Nature of Evidence: Allahabad High Court Grants Bail in Rs. 32.66 Crore Fake ITC Fraud Case *  Supreme Court Flags Systemic Bias in Army’s Permanent Commission Process for Women Officers *  Re-Determination of Land Compensation Can Be Based on Appellate Court Awards, Clarifies Scope of S. 28-A: Supreme Court. *  Supreme Court Imposes Rs. 5 Lakh Costs On Rent Authority Officer For Acting Beyond Jurisdiction. *  DGGI Meerut | Court Denies Bail to Accused in Claiming Fake ITC And Export Refunds *  Denial of GST Rate Revision Benefit to Contractor Violates Article 14: Rajasthan HC *  GST Registration Cancellation for Non-Filing of Returns: Gauhati High Court Directs Restoration on Compliance. *   Supreme Court Quashes FEMA Adjudication Orders, Revives Proceedings at  Show Cause Stage. *   Higher Rank, Harsher Punishment Justified: Supreme Court Restores Dismissal  of Bank Manager in Misappropriation Case. *   Limitation for Export Refund to Be Counted from Foreign Exchange Realisation,  Not From Export Invoices Issuance: CESTAT  

Comments

Print   |    |  Comment

PJ/CASE LAW/2016-17/3199

Denial of cenvat credit on short receipt of coal in the factory due to unavoidable loss

Case-SARDA ENERGY AND MINERALS LTD. Versus COMMISSIONER OF C. EX., RAIPUR
 
Citation-2016 (337) E.L.T. 143 (Tri. - Del.)
 
Brief Facts-The present appeal is against order dated 30-7-2014 of Commissioner (Appeals-I), Raipur. The appellants are engaged in the manufacture of Ferro Alloys liable to Central Excise duty. They buy coal from Coal Mines which are required to be washed to make them suitable for use in their manufacturing process. The coal purchased by the appellant are cleared from the mines on payment of duty and send directly to washery - job worker for washing the coal to make it fit for further use. During such washing an irrecoverable weight loss of about 3% occurs. The appellants are buying coal and are getting invoice with duty paid details on a monthly basis. Since the documents covering the transport in individual trucks was not duty paid documents, the appellants requested the Department to permit them to take Cenvat credit on the monthly invoices in terms of Rule 9(2) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. The Assistant Commissioner granted such permission vide his letter dated 12-9-2012. While granting such permission, the Assistant Commissioner intimated that the credit shall be restricted to the actual quantity of coal received physically by the appellant in their premises. The appellants vide their letter dated 14-9-2012 requested for credit of full duty paid on coal and shortage, if any, is attributable to washing done by the job worker. Later, proceedings were initiated against the appellant by issue of notice dated 29-4-2013. The case was adjudicated by the Original Authority vide order dated 30-4-2014. He disallowed the credit of Rs. 1,92,277/- and imposed equal penalty on the appellant. On appeal, the Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the said order. Aggrieved, the appellant is before the Tribunal.
 
Appelants Contention-The learned Council for the appellant submitted that full quantity of coal they purchased from the coal company is rightly entitled for credit. Washing of such coal is necessarily an integral part of manufacture of their final product and the loss of about 3% in weight is attributable to washing. In other words the invisible loss which happens during washing cannot be held against the appellant for denying the credit. The learned counsel submitted that during the impugned period out of total coal of 1,26,334 M.T., the Cenvat credit on 3,572 M.T. was sought to be denied on the ground that the said coal has not been put into use as required under Cenvat Credit Rules. This, the Counsel submitted, is legally unsustainable. The show cause notice itself is substantially time barred, except for two months. There is no suppression on their part as is evident from the communications sent by them disclosing all details, while seeking permission to take credit on monthly invoices. The learned counsel also relied on the Tribunal’s decision in UIC Industries Ltd. v.CCE, Calcutta - III reported in 2002 (149)E.L.T.745 (Tri. - Kolkata) and Board Circular No. 267/136/87-CX.8, dated 15-1-1988 and instructions contained in para 3.7 of Central Excise Manual.
 
Respondents Contention-The learned AR reiterated the findings of the lower Authorities and submitted that the appellants did not follow the procedure stipulated for movement of goods to the job worker in terms of Notification No. 214/86-C.E., dated 25-3-1986.
 
Reasoning Of Judgement-The tribunal have heard both the sides and examined appeal records. The point for decision is whether or not the appellants are right in taking credit on the full quantity of coal bought by them on payment of duty from coal mines. The Department denied the credit attributable to the invisible losses that occur due to washing of the coal to make it fit for use. There is no allegation in any proceedings that certain quantity of inputs have been diverted or contained in some other product that arose during the processing of the coal. The admitted fact is that the 3% loss is solely attributable to washing. Considering the above factual position, they find no ground to restrict the Cenvat credit when the appellants bought and paid for the quantities of coal cleared from the coal mines and therefore find the impugned order is unsustainable and accordingly allow the appeal.
 
Decision-Appeal allowed
 
Comment-The gist of the case is that on the short receipt of coal in factory up to 3% of weight due to washing loss by job worker, which was necessary for making it fit for use, credit cannot be denied. And since the assessee has paid duty on full quantity received from mines, there is no allegation that such quantity diverted or contained in some other products during processing thereof, hence credit not deniable in accordance with Rule 3 and Rule 9 of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004.

Prepared By-Neelam Jain
 
 

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