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 Laws/2011-12/1228

Import of cars under EPCG Scheme
Case: Shri Jayant Malhotra and another Versus CC, New Delhi

Citation: 2011-TIOL-784-CESTAT-DEL

Issue: - Import of cars under EPCG Scheme – cars sold or utilised for other purpose after obtaining EODC from DGFT – allegation of violation of Customs Notifications not sustainable.  

Brief Facts: - Appellants imported cars under EPCG Scheme as service provider under the Tour Operator category at concessional rate of duty. Customs Authorities alleged that the appellants were misusing the same, since the said imported cars were not being used for the intended purpose. It was also alleged that the export obligation with respect to two vehicles have been fraudulently fulfilled from the foreign exchange earned from the air ticketing services and even one of the two cars was sold in violation to the conditions as laid down in EPCG Scheme and relevant Customs Notification.
During the course of investigation, the appellants submitted that as they have obtained export obligation discharged certificate from the DGFT, they have not violated the conditions of the notifications, hence the proceedings may be dropped.
Department issued Show Cause Notice to the appellants for violation of the Foreign Trade Regulation Rules. Demands were confirmed against the appellant and penalties were imposed on them. Aggrieved from the said order, the appellants have filed this appeal.

Appellant’s Contention: - After the fulfillment of export obligation, the appellant submits the application for redemption of EPCG licences. The necessary foreign exchange into the remittance service were duly issued by the authorised dealer showing remittance of proceeds in foreign exchange and same were submitted to the licencing authority, on being satisfied with the fulfillment of export obligation, the licencing authority issued export obligation discharged certificate and after getting the EODC, the Customs Authorities cancelled the Bank guarantee and the said vehicle was sold.
In case of second vehicle the DGFT was pleased to drop the Show Cause Notice after being satisfied that export obligation has been duly discharged by the appellant. Appellant submitted that in respect of both the vehicles in question, the appellants have discharged their export obligation as per the licence issued under EPCG Scheme. Hence the proceedings under the impugned Show Cause Notice are to be quashed. As the EPCG licence were issued correctly and the appellants have discharged the export obligation also correctly.
Appellant relied on the case ofAir Travel Bureau Ltd. vs. CC reported in 2010 (260) ELT 78 (Del.).

Reasoning of the Judgment: The Tribunal found that in the cars were imported by the appellants under EPCG Scheme and after discharging their export obligation the DGFT has issued (EODC) Export obligation discharged certificate as per EXIM policy. The cases against the appellants have been made out for violation of Custom Notification No. 44/2002 and 55/2003.
The Tribunal have gone through the decision of Air Travel Bureau Ltd wherein the High Court has confirmed the decision of this Tribunal reported in 2009 (237) ELT 283 (Tri.-Del.) wherein this Tribunal has held that the assessee have been able to fulfill the obligation under EPCG licence which was the very condition imposed in the said licence by DGFT. DGFT redeemed the licence and has taken a view that the assessee has fulfilled their export obligation.
There is no doubt the opinion of the DGFT would not be conclusive and any such certificate cannot stop the power of the authority to reopen even a concluded matter, if it is shown that the such conclusion was vitiated by fraud, concealment of facts or misrepresentation or misdeclaration which was not been in that case. Therefore, the matter was decided in favour of the assessee.
Admittedly, in this case also there is no allegation against the appellants that they have obtained export obligation discharge certificate by way of fraud, concealment of facts or mis-representation or mis-declaration. The certificate from DGFT was after verifying the facts that the appellants have fulfilled the conditions of the notification. Hence, following the decision of Air Travel Bureau Ltd, the Tribunal found that in these matters also the appellants have been able to discharge their export obligation and obtained the certificate from DGFT after following the provisions of law. Impugned Order is set aside.

Decision: Appeal allowed.

Comment:- DGFT is prime authority in issue of EPCG and when they have issued redemption certificate then custom department
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