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/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