Chartered Accountant
Bookmark and Share
click here to subscribe our newsletter
 
 
Corporate News *  The GSTN has issued an Advisory dated 21.04.2026 about the introduction of an Offline Tool for the Invoice Management System (IMS)  *  CBIC extends due dates for filing of FORM GSTR 3B  for the month of April 2026 *  Interest cannot be imposed in adjudication order, if not demanded/quantified in show cause notice : Allahabad HC *  Wheelchairs with toileting facility eligible for exemption: CESTAT affirms customs duty exemption to importer *  Industries urge GST council to allow inverted duty refunds on input services *  Tamil Nadu GST dept introduced virtual hearing facility for GST appeals under under section 107 of the TNGST act: detailed guidelines  *  CIC urges authorities to implement GST evasion complaint tracking system *  Even if the assessee opts "NO" for personal hearing in form DRC-06 ,The mandatory requirement under section 75(4) to grant opportunity of hearing cannot be waived:Gujarat High Court  *  Glufosinate imports curbs imposed by govt *  Government extends Re-import period for exported cut & polished diamonds *  CIC flags lack of tracking system for tax evasion complaints,urges GST authorities to improve transparency *  No Custodial Interrogation needed in GST fraud case based on documentary evidence already in Department's Possession : Chattisgarh HC *  Orders under section cannot be sustained if passed without considering the taxpayer's objections and without granting a personal hearing:Gujarat High Court *  Mere cancellation of supplier's registration cannot,by itself,justify denial of ITC or cancellation of the recipient's registration:Bombay High Court *  High Court sets aside GST notice citing factual errors and natural justice violations *  Provisional Bank Attachment under Section. 110 of Customs Act Unsustainable Beyond Statutory period without Extension order: Bombay HC orders to defreeze accounts *  Post Clearance MRP Alteration by Distributor Does not attract Differential Customs Duty: CESTAT *  DGFT Expands scope of 'Screws' classification under RoDTEP Scheme  *  E-way bills surze to all time high of 140.6 million in March *  GST Exemption Allowed on Pure Labour Services for Standalone Houses: AAR  *  GST Payable Only on Margin in Second-Hand Car Sales, Subject to Strict Conditions and No ITC Claim: AAR *  DGFT rolls out procedure for allocation of calcined coke *  GST portal update : Pre-deposit amount now editable in Appeals *  J&K HC declared TMT scrap a 'Specified Good' eligibile for GST refunds under Support Scheme  *  Pigmy agents are employees of banks; no GST can be levied on commission  paid to them : Karnataka HC *  DGFT Revises HS Code Description for Screws Under RoDTEP *  GST Registration Cancellation Invalid Without Proper Service of Notice: Allahabad High Court. *  Bengaluru CGST | GST Backlog Appeals Deadline Fixed at June 30, 2026 *  No Time Bar on Refund of Service Tax for Services Not Rendered: CESTAT  Remands Indiabulls Case for Unjust Enrichment Check. *  Supreme Court Holds Renewable Energy Incentive Must Benefit Generators, Not Be Adjusted in Tariff
Subject News *   Delhi HC Quashes Order, Says Reminder Cannot Validate Improperly Served GST SCN *  KARNATAKA HIGH COURT REMANDS GST SHORTFALL MATTER DUE TO ABSENCE OF PERSONAL HEARING   *  CESTAT cancels confiscation and penalties on imported computer cabinet cases: Custom duty restricted to 111 surplus units *  Deposit of tax during search or investigation cannot be treated as 'Voluntary Payment' : Bombay High Court *  Section 76 of the CGST cannot be invoked where the tax has already been duly deposited, even if through another registration of the same entity: Madras High Court *  Sec 74 allows use of material regardless of source; illegality or flaws in section 67 search do not vitiate valid adjudication: HC *  Inter-State transfer of ITC on Amalgamation permissible as given under section 18(3) read with rule 41 of the CGST rules, 2017: Gujarat High Court *  HC: No GST on commisson paid to Pigmy Agents *  IGST refund denial on illegible bill of lading invalid absent chance to furnish docs; merit reconsideration in appeals directed: HC *  ITC is not admissible on GST paid on leasehold rights of land used fpr setting up an air seperation plant: AAAR,Tamil Nadu *  GST: No penalty under Section 74 after voluntary ITC reversal due to non-existent supplier : High Court *  TN AAAR denies GST ITC on Land Lease under Sec. 17(5)(d) for setting up plant and machinery *  GST proceedings quashed as notices sent to old address, despite updated address in registration *  Importer Can’t Be Penalised for Alleged IGCR Procedural Lapses Without Evidence of Departmental Error: CESTAT *  Structured Healthcare Training Not ‘Charitable Activity’, 18% GST Payable: AAR  *  CESTAT As The Appellate Authority For Central Sales Tax Disputes: A Paradigm Shift Under Finance Act, 2023 *   Rs. 25K Cost Imposed On SGST Joint Commissioner for Attaching Bank  Accounts Without Forming Mandatory “Opinion”: Bombay HC *   Ex-Parte GST Order Without Hearing Violates Natural Justice: Karnataka  High Court Quashes Adjudication and Bank Attachment.  *   Retrospective GST Cancellation Can’t Invalidate Genuine Transactions:  Jaipur Commissioner (Appeals) Quashes Rs. 95,670 ITC Demand. *   GST Pre-Deposit Non-Compliance: Allahabad High Court Allows Appeal  Subject to Rs. 30 Lakh Balance Deposit, Recognises Offline Filing. *  Documentary Nature of Evidence: Allahabad High Court Grants Bail in Rs. 32.66 Crore Fake ITC Fraud Case *  Supreme Court Flags Systemic Bias in Army’s Permanent Commission Process for Women Officers *  Re-Determination of Land Compensation Can Be Based on Appellate Court Awards, Clarifies Scope of S. 28-A: Supreme Court. *  Supreme Court Imposes Rs. 5 Lakh Costs On Rent Authority Officer For Acting Beyond Jurisdiction. *  DGGI Meerut | Court Denies Bail to Accused in Claiming Fake ITC And Export Refunds *  Denial of GST Rate Revision Benefit to Contractor Violates Article 14: Rajasthan HC *  GST Registration Cancellation for Non-Filing of Returns: Gauhati High Court Directs Restoration on Compliance. *   Supreme Court Quashes FEMA Adjudication Orders, Revives Proceedings at  Show Cause Stage. *   Higher Rank, Harsher Punishment Justified: Supreme Court Restores Dismissal  of Bank Manager in Misappropriation Case. *   Limitation for Export Refund to Be Counted from Foreign Exchange Realisation,  Not From Export Invoices Issuance: CESTAT  

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