Chartered Accountant
Bookmark and Share
click here to subscribe our newsletter
 
 
Corporate News *  Dept. Can’t Classify Product as Zarda Scented Tobacco After Repeatedly Approving It As Chewing Tobacco: CESTAT *  Mere Uploading Of GST Order On Portal Is Not “Valid” Service: Tripura HC *  CGST Can Proceed Even If SGST Closed Similar Case Earlier: Delhi HC *  SC upholds 28% GST on online gaming with retrospective effect. *  West Bengal Govt cuts E-way Bill Threshold limit to Rs. 50,000 for intra-state goods movement. *  Criminal Prosecution Under Central Excise Act Can’t Continue After CESTAT Sets Aside Duty Demand on Merits: Punjab & Haryana High Court. *  Madras High Court Quashes GST Assessment Orders for Denial of Personal Hearing; Remands Matter Subject to 10% Deposit *  Ex Parte GST Order: Madras High Court Directs Immediate Removal of Bank/ITC Attachment Upon 25% Deposit *  J.K. Cement Receives GST Demand Order of Rs 8,02,113/- from Ahmedabad Tax Authority *  Delhi Police EOW Busts Alleged Rs. 128 Crore GST Fake Invoice Network. *  REPLY TO SCN CAN’T BE TREATED AS “EMPTY FORMALITY”: ORISSA HIGH COURT QUASHES GST DEMAND OF RS. 57.30 LAKH *  Challenge to CGST Provisions restricting ITC to Bonafide Purchasers : Allahabad HC issues notice *  CBIC Notifies Revised Customs Tariff Values for Edible Oils, Gold, Silver, Brass Scrap and Areca Nuts *  Delhi HC Orders Removal of GST Attachment After Statutory 1 Year Period Expired *  GSTAT Extends Relaxed Appeal Filing Guidelines till December 31, 2026 *  AO fails to Provide Import - Export Data from DGFT to Taxpayer for Reconciliation *  Gold, Silver Imports To Get Costlier As Govt Raises Customs Duty To 10%  *  GSTAT Enables Pre-Payment Access to Document Upload and Checklist for GST Appeal Filing *  GST Portal Restrictions Can’t Override Statute: Gujarat HC Allows Cross-State Transfer Of CGST ITC After Amalgamation *  Centre Revises HS Codes for Large Diameter Steel Pipes Used in Oil & Gas Pipelines *  Customs Duty Liability Arises On Warehouse Clearance Date: Supreme Court *  Government lifts export ban on de-oiled rice bran *  CESTAT Grants 12% Interest on Pre-Deposit for Investigation from Date of Deposit till Refund and Denies Interest on Interest. *  Government Overhauls GST Classification Framework for Non-Alcoholic Beverages; Fruit Juice Drinks, Milk-Based Beverages and Caffeinated Drinks to Attract Revised 5% and 40% GST Rates from May 1, 2026 *  India’s gross GST collections hit a record Rs 2.42 lakh crore in April, up 8.7% *  Customs clearance stalled, revenue hit over MRP dispute *  Shipping Corporation explores Middle East routes as Hormuz tensions disrupt cargo movement *  India, Kenya signs MoU for exchange of pre-arrival customs information *  No demand of Taxes under Reverse Charge if Tax Already Discharged by Service Provider under forward charge *  The India-New Zealand Free Trade Agreement, signed "once-in-a-generation" deal that eliminates tariffs on 100% of Indian exports to New Zealand
Subject News *  Consignment Sales Can’t Be Reclassified as Inter-State Sales Based on Pre-Agreement Evidence: CESTAT *  Exporter Can’t Be Denied Advance Authorization Benefit Due To ICEGATE Technical Glitch: Delhi High Court *  No GST Demand For Mere Wrong Set-Off Of IGST Credit Under CGST And SGST Heads: Kerala HC. *  Cenvat Credit Can’t Be Denied on Input Services Having Nexus With Manufacturing Activities: CESTAT *  Pending Proceedings Can’t Survive Without Saving Clause: Calcutta High Court Quashes GST Demand of Rs. 6.28 Crore After Omission of Rule 96(10) *  Madras HC Quashes GST Demands on TASMAC (Tamil Nadu State Marketing Corporation) Bar Licence Fee *  GST Proceedings Cannot Survive Omitted Rule Without Saving Clause: Calcutta HC *  Provisional Release Can’t Be Denied Solely On Dept. Suspicion Of Misclassification And Undervaluation Of Imported Goods: CESTAT *  Businesses Should Not Be Kept Outside GST Regime Without Due Process: Gauhati High Court *  Punjab & Haryana HC Directs Reconsideration of Contractors’ Claim for Additional GST Payment After Tax Rate Hike From 12% to 18% *  S. 108 Statements Can’t Be Sole Basis Without Following Section 138B Procedure: CESTAT *  Bombay High Court Frames Key Questions on Mandatory Distribution of ITC U/s 20 CGST Act *  Filing of Annexure-B for Refund Applications involving Accumulated ITC using the offline utility in GST portal: GSTN *  No Service Tax on Parent Company’s Un-Invoiced Cost Allocations Without Actual Service or Consideration: CESTAT  *  Calcutta High Court Upholds GST Classification of Polypropylene Leno Bags as Plastic Products *  DRC-01 Summary Can’t Replace Mandatory SCN: Gauhati High Court *  GSTAT Issues Major Bench Allocation Framework; All Appeals to First Go Before Division Bench *  ITC Blocking Without Reasoned Order Violates Rule 86A; Punjab & Haryana HC Directs Release of Credit *  Allahabad HC Refuses Bail to CGST Superintendent In Rs. 70 Lakh Bribery Case *  S.130 Can’t Be Invoked Without Prior Tax Determination U/s 73/74: Allahabad High Court Quashes GST Confiscation Proceedings *  SC grants Bail to Rs 54cr GST case  *  Karnataka HC Sets Aside Duplicate GST Orders, Orders Fresh Hearing on GSTIN Cancellation *  DRC-01 Summary Can’t Replace Mandatory SCN: Gauhati High Court *  Transfer Of Unutilized ITC After Amalgamation - Supreme Court Issues Notice *  PUNJAB & HARYANA HC QUASHES GST CANCELLATION NOTICE FOR FAILURE TO PROVIDE CBIC ENQUIRY REPORT *  LICENSE FEE, TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE CHARGES NOT INCLUDIBLE IN CUSTOMS VALUE UNLESS THEY ARE A CONDITION OF SALE: CESTAT *  DELHI HC ORDERS REMOVAL OF GST ATTACHMENT AFTER STATUTORY 1 YEAR PERIOD EXPIRED *  CUSTOMS BROKER CAN’T BE FAULTED JUST BECAUSE EXPORTER’S GST REGISTRATION WAS PREVIOUSLY CANCELLED: CESTAT   *  Supreme Court Dismisses Review Plea Against Delhi HC Ruling Holding Real Operator Behind Fake GST Firms Liable As ‘Taxable Person  *  GST Appeal Can’t Be Rejected Merely Because DRC-07 Was Not Uploaded On Portal: Bombay High Court  

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