Chartered Accountant
Bookmark and Share
click here to subscribe our newsletter
 
 
Corporate News *  GST registration cancellation without reasons amounts to ‘Economic Death’ of business: Supreme Court. *  No GST refund if appeal before GSTAT is filed late: Gujarat High Court. *  Mere upload of GST notice on portal not valid service, appeal limitation won’t start: Punjab & Haryana High Court. *  Taxpayer can’t be penalised for missing notices hidden under ‘Additional Notices/Orders’: Calcutta High Court allows fresh adjudication. *  State tax officer can’t issue GST SCN beyond CBIC-assigned jurisdiction: Bombay High Court stays recovery proceedings. *  Earlier 7.5% Pre-Deposit must count towards mandatory 10% for Appeal: Uttarakhand high court quashes CESTAT Order. *  Third Parties can’t challenge GST Advance Rulings merely due to financial impact: Karnataka HC *  GST SCN generated using AI tool quashed: Punjab & Haryana High Court *  Bank Attachment Quashed as Madras HC Quashes GST Order Issued Against Deceased Person *  ITC Blocking Order for Failure to Record ‘Reason to Believe’ U/R 86A Quashed: Allahabad High Court *  Govt Extends GSTAT Appeal Filing Deadline From 30 June to July 31, 2026 *  GST Demand on RWA Stayed: Allahabad High Court Questions Taxability of Electricity Distribution to Flat Owners *  CBIC Clarifies Jurisdiction After GST Registration Transfer: Earlier Proceedings Remain Valid, New Officer to Continue Action *  GST authorities’ certification not mandatory for reimbursement, but tax payment must be proven: Karnataka HC *  Contractor can’t seek gst reimbursement through writ when contract has arbitration clause: Karnataka HC *  Unsigned Order Is No Order in Law: AP HC Quashes GST Assessment Order for Want of Officer’s Signature *  Customs Can’t Levy Rs. 1.36 Crore Cost Recovery Charges Without Proof of Full-Day Officer Deployment: CESTAT  *  12% IGST Payable On Imported Dialysis Machine Parts: CESTAT *  Bombay High Court Admits Challenge to GST Limitation Extension Notifications; Grants Protection Against Coercive Recovery *  Criminal Case Can’t Run Parallel to GST Proceedings on Same Facts: Allahabad High Court *  Allahabad High Court Stays GST Detention Order; Directs Release of Vehicle and Goods on Deposit of Rs. 1.44 Lakh *  Service Tax Can’t Be Levied on Loss-Making Contracts: Gujarat High Court *  GSTN Mandates Ship-to GSTIN in e-Invoice and e-Way Bill APIs; Introduces Voluntary e-Way Bill Closure Facility from August 1, 2026 *  GST Appeal Can’t Be Rejected as Time-Barred When Taxpayer Was Pursuing Rectification Remedy: Telangana High Court *  Absence of E-Way Bill and Transport Documents Justifies Customs Seizure U/s 110: Gauhati HC *  Madras High Court Upholds GST Late Fee and Penalty for Non-Filing of Annual Return, Dismisses Challenge  *  GST Records, Purchase Documents Sufficient to Discharge Burden Under Customs Act: CESTAT Orders Release of 3.65 Kg Gold  *  No Sugar Cess Payable on Sugar Exported Out of India: CESTAT *  Road Construction Services Exempt and SCN Time-Barred: CESTAT Quashes Service Tax Demand Based Solely on Form 26AS  *  ITC Freeze Upheld After GST Dept Find Suppliers Were Allegedly Fake Bill-Trading Entities: Madras HC 
Subject News *  Input service benefits can’t be denied: CESTAT allows export refund despite MMTC acting as Canalising agency. *  No service tax demand without proof of service of SCN: CESTAT. *  Service tax demand quashed as dept. fails to prove service of SCN: CESTAT *  GST : Mere allegation of inadequate consideration of reply not enough to invoke writ jurisdiction: Delhi High Court *  Onerous conditions imposed for provisional release of seized imported goods shouldn’t amount to virtual denial of relief: CESTAT. *  GST SCN without alleging fraud cannot invoke sec. 74: Karnataka High Court quashes adjudication order. *  Extended Limitation Can’t Be Invoked Merely on Form 26AS Data: CESTAT *  Revenue-Sharing with Restaurants Not Taxable as Business Support Service: CESTAT *  R. 6(3) Option Can’t Be Forced on Taxpayer; CESTAT Quashes Rs. 12.36 Crore CENVAT Credit Demand *  Excise Duty | Power Consumption Alone Can’t Prove Clandestine Manufacture: Karnataka High Court *  Madras High Court Examines DGGI’s Authority to Issue GST Penalty Orders Under Section 122, Adds DGGI as Party *  Proceedings under omitted r. 96(10) can’t survive without saving clause: andhra pradesh high court quashes gst refund recovery *  Excise duty power consumption alone can’t prove clandestine manufacture: karnataka high court *  Madras high court rules GST show cause notices must disclose grounds for invoking extended limitation *  Court Can’t Direct Extension GST Return Deadlines or Waive Interest and Penalties: Karnataka High Court *  GST Notifications Can’t Go Beyond GST Council Recommendations: Madras High Court Quashes SCN on Branded Pulses *  Appeal Can’t Be Dismissed for Delay When Dept’s Own Order Mis-states Limitation Period: CESTAT *  No Evidence of KYC or Due Diligence Breach By Customs Broker: CESTAT Quashes Licence Revocation in Export Overvaluation Case *  Glucometers Are Chemical Analysis Instruments Classifiable Under Tariff Heading 9027: CESTAT *  Validity of Post-GST Service Tax Proceedings Upheld: Gujarat High Court Dismisses Challenge to S. 73 SCN *  Rectified GST Refund Applications Can’t Be Rejected as Time-Barred If Original Refund Claim Was Filed Within Limitation: Gujarat HC *  Service Tax Refund Can’t Be Denied as Time-Barred When Levy Itself Is Unconstitutional: Gujarat High Court *  Same Officer Can’t Act As Auditor & Adjudicator: Karnataka High Court *  Karnataka High Court Condones 324-Day Delay, Revives Customs Appeal in Jewellery Pilferage Case  *  Madras High Court Quashes GST Assessment Order Passed Ex Parte Despite Prior ITC Reversal; Lifts Bank Attachment *  Tobacco Process Doesn’t Amount to Manufacturing: Madras High Court Quashes Rs. 1.32 Crore Compensation Cess Demand  *  Recovery Notice Unsustainable After Voluntary Reversal of Unutilised Credit: CESTAT  *  GST | ‘System Generated’ SCN Without Officer Details Invalid: Allahabad HC  *  Electronic Records Without Statutory Certification Requirements Can’t Justify Undervaluation Allegations: CESTAT *  Madras High Court Stays GST Order, Finds Prima Facie Merit in Plea Against S. 74 Proceedings Based on S. 73 Intimation  

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