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/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