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/2013-14/2026

Importer’s invoice valid document for availing credit.

Case:-JINDAL STEEL & POWER LTD. VERSUS COMMR. OF C.EX. & SERVICE TAX, RAIPUR

Citation:-2013(298) E.L.T. 447 (Tri.-Del.)

Brief Facts:-This appeal is filed by M/s. Jindal Steel & Power Ltd., against the Order-in-Appeal No. 36/RPR-I/2012, dated. 27 February, 2012 passed by Commissioner, Central Excise & Customs (Appeals-I).

The brief facts of the case are that the appellants had availed the CENVAT credit amounting to Rs. 9,62,092/- on the goods imported by M/s. ABB Ltd., Bangalore vide bills of entry No. 297005, dated 17-11-2006 and 305232, dated 28-11-2006. These goods were supplied to the appellants by ABB Ltd. on the strength of invoice No. 649020250 and 649020251, both dated 29 November, 2006. The Department has denied the CENVAT credit to the appellants on the ground that the bills of entry are in the names of ABB Ltd. and original of which are not available. Accordingly, the show cause notice was issued to the appellants, which was adjudicated against them by the original authority. Appellants chal­lenged the same before the C.C.E. (Appeals), who also rejected their appeal. Ap­pellants filed this appeal against the impugned order.
 
Appellant Contentions:- The counsel for the appellant submits that they are rightly eligible for credit availment on the strength of importer’s invoice as per Rule 9 and the same should be allowed to them.

Respondent Contentions:-The respondent reiterated the findings of the lower authorities.

Reasoning of Judgment:-Heard both the sides. It is found that the CENVAT credit is denied to the appellants on the ground that the bills of entry are not available in original and are also in the name ABB Ltd. in the absence of which, the appellants are not entitled for CENVAT credit. It is found that under Rule 9, the documents on the basis of which the credit can be allowed are specified. Rule 9(1)(a) of the CENVAT Credit Rules reads as under :-

"Rule 9.Documents and accounts. - (1) The CENVAT credit shall be taken by the manufacturer or the provider of output service or input service distributor, as the case may be, on the basis of any of the following docu­ments, namely :-
(a)        an invoice issued by -
      i.        A manufacturer for clearance of –
                     I.        Inputs or capital goods from his factory or depot or from the premises of the consignment agent of the said manu­facturer or from any other premises from where the goods are sold by or on behalf of the said manufacturer;
                    II.        Inputs or capital goods as such;
     ii.        an importer;
    iii.        an importer from his depot or from the premises of the con­signment agent of the said imports if the said depot or the premises, as the case may be, is registered in terms of the pro­visions of Central Excise Rules, 2002;
    iv.        a first stage dealer or a second stage dealer, as the case may be, in terms of the provisions of Central Excise Rules, 2002; or"

It is found from Rule 9(1)(a)(ii) that any invoice issued by importer is admissible documents for CENVAT credit. In the present case, the appellants are having importer's invoices showing the amount of duty on which they are seeking CENVAT credit. Therefore, there is no reason to deny the CENVAT credit to the appellants on the basis of the importer invoices. As regards second ground of denying credit on ground of delay in taking credit, there is no time-frame men­tioned in the CENVAT Credit Rules in availing the CENVAT credit. Therefore, there is no reason to reject the CENVAT credit on the ground of time also. Ac­cordingly, the Order-in-Appeal is not sustainable and the appeal is allowed.

Decision:-Appeal allowed.

Comment:-The analogy that is drawn from this case is that invoice issued by the importer is a valid document for the purpose of availing cenvat credit and the credit cannot be denied on the ground that original copy of bill of entry was not present. Moreover, it was also confirmed in this case that no time limit is prescribed in the Cenvat Credit Rules for availing the cenvat credit and it can be availed any time after receipt of goods. 

Comments

Post a Comment



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