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/2013-14/1625

Input credit not deniable on the ground that process undertaken by the assessee does not amounts to manufacture.

Case:- M/s ANUTONE ACOUSTICS LTD Vs COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, THANE-I

Citation:- 2013-TIOL-984-CESTAT-DEL

Brief facts:- The appellants are in appeal against the impugned order demanding duty interest and penalty by denying the input credit on the inputs secured by them during the period October, 2006 to March 2009 on the premises that activity undertaken by the appellant does not amount to manufacture. A redemption fine of Rs. 94 lakhs was also imposed.

Appellants contention:- The appellant submits that he has applied for registration in the month of August, 2006. On his application a query was raised by the jurisdictional Dy. Commissioner of Central Excise, the same was replied and after visit of the factory of the appellant of the premises by the concerned officer and understanding the activity undertaken by the appellant, the registration was granted and after granting the registration they procured the inputs and took credit and clear their final product on payment of duty. Therefore, it is the contention of the revenue that activity does not amount to manufacture, they have already paid the duty on their final product and same may be treated as reversal the Cenvat Credit availed by them on the inputs as held by this Tribunal in the case of Ajinkya Enterprises vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Pune-II reported in 2013 (288) E.L.T. 247 (Tri-Mumbai) (2011-TIOL-1333-CESTAT-MUM).

Respondents Contention:-On the other hand the Respondent opposed the contention of the appellant and submitted that the activity of cutting and packing undertaken by the appellant does not amount to manufacture and at the time of visit there was no activity being undertaken by them. Therefore, the appellant has misrepresented to the department for seeking registration.

Reasoning of Judgement:- Considering the submission made by both the sides, the Hon’ble CESTAT find that after explaining the process that is to be undertaken by the appellant, the registration was granted and appellant was procuring inputs on payment of duty and credit of the same has been taken by them. After doing process, the appellants are clearing the goods on payment of duty. During the period October, 2006 to March, 2009 no audit was taken place at the premises of the appellant whether the activity amounts to manufacture or not when the registration has been granted to the appellant. Therefore, the appellants are entitled for input credit on the inputs and at the same time we also find that appellants are clearing finished goods on payment of duty. In this case, admittedly Show Cause Notice has been issued by invoking the extended period of limitation. As the activity undertaken by the appellant was in the knowledge of the department, the extended period of limitation is not invokable. Further, we find that as per the decision of this Tribunal in the case of Ajinkya Enterprises (supra) wherein this Tribunal held that although the activity undertaken by the appellant does not amount to manufacture but when they have cleared their finished product on payment of duty, the same may be treated as reversal of Cenvat Credit availed on inputs. With this observation the Hon’ble CESTAT hold that appellants are not required to reverse the Cenvat Credit as they have already paid duty on their clearances and also hold that the appellants are having a strong case of limitation also. Therefore, we set aside the impugned order and allow the appeal with consequential relief if any.
 
Decision:- The appeal is allowed with consequential relief.
 
Comment:- The crux of the whole case is if an activity does not amount to manufacture but excise duty is paid on clearance of finished goods then Cenvat Credit cannot be denied on the ground that the process does not amounts to manufacture. The clearance of goods on payment of duty itself indicates that the credit has been reversed on the inputs.
 
 

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