Chartered Accountant
Bookmark and Share
click here to subscribe our newsletter
 
 
Corporate News *  Service tax penalty can’t survive when assessee acted on dept.’s own view of non-taxability: Delhi High Court. *  GST section 74 extended limitation questionable when form 26AS mismatch was already known: Karnataka High Court grants interim relief. *  CGST demand prima facie impermissible after state GST settlement under section 128A: Bombay High Court. *  Supreme Court asks GSTAT to sympathetically consider delay as taxpayers pursued remedy before wrong forum. *  Supreme Court stays Tripura High Court ruling protecting genuine buyers from ITC denial over supplier’s GST default. *  Diary entries alone can’t prove clandestine removal of goods: CESTAT quashes excise penalty on steel trader. *  Customs could investigate preferential tariff claims even before sec. 28DA: Delhi High Court. *  Customs dept. relied on fake AI generated case laws: supreme court quashes Rs. 425.28 crore penalty. *  No GST exemption in affiliation and annual registration charges for admission or conduct Of examinations: GSTAT. *  Mere invoices, cheque payments insufficient to establish genuine movement of goods: GSTAT restores Rs. 43.44 lakh ITC demand. *  Consolidated GST show cause notice covering multiple financial years is not without jurisdiction: Delhi High Court. *  Construction of independent houses on separate plots not taxable as ‘Residential Complex’ without common facilities: CESTAT. *  GST penalty exceeding statutory maximum unsustainable; Allahabad High Court quashes ? 50,000/- penalty after taxpayer filed return and paid late fee. *  GST order against standard chartered bank passed without hearing set aside by Bombay High Court. *  Retracted statements can’t be relied upon without cross-examination: CESTAT quashes gold confiscation. *  Burden to prove misclassification lies on customs department: CESTAT. *  CESTAT quashes Rs. 98 lakh excise demand on clearance of used refractory brick scrap. *  Service tax demand on irrigation works quashed: Karnataka High Court rules sale of goods component not taxable as service. *  GSTAT restores tax and penalty for transporting iron scrap without E-way bill citing intent to evade tax. *  Madras High Court stays GST recovery from directors without opportunity to show cause under section 89. *  Madras high court stays GST recovery notice against directors; finds prima facie case on applicability of section 79(1)(c). *  Procedural lapses can’t justify harsh punishment without serious customs breach: CESTAT quashes customs broker licence revocation. *  Service tax payable on land leasing and sports complex charges: CESTAT. *  Settled customs dispute can’t be reopened through Article 226 challenge to interest liability: Delhi High Court. *  Mere facilitation of customs clearance can’t establish knowledge of smuggling: Madras High Court. *  GST registration cancellation stayed: Allahabad High Court questions 99% ITC utilisation cap under rule 86B. *  Composition scheme lapses automatically on crossing Rs. 1.5 crore turnover: GSTAT. *  Gujarat High Court quashes GST cancellation orders after officer relied on non-existent AI-generated case laws. *  Importers liable for customs duty benefits availed through manipulated scrips: Delhi High Court. *  Procedural E-way bill lapse alone can’t justify penalty where genuine transaction and absence of tax evasion are established: GSTAT.
Subject News *  Documentary evidence dominates probe, further custody unwarranted: mumbai court grants bail in Rs. 22.44 crore customs duty evasion case. *  Business premises can’t remain sealed for non-participation in GST search: Allahabad High Court. *  GST pre-deposit must be refunded proportionately when taxpayer partly succeeds in appeal: Bombay High Court. *  Supreme Court grants 30 days to file GST appeal; keeps pre-deposit issue open due to deposit in parallel CGST proceedings. *  GST demand can’t exceed amount proposed in SCN: Allahabad High Court quashes Rs. 20.47 Crore order. *  Hundreds-of-crores GST demand and heavy 10% pre-deposit no ground to bypass statutory appeal: Punjab & Haryana High Court. *  Delhi High Court refuses to entertain challenge to gold confiscation due to statutory appeal remedy and unexplained delay. *  Procedural error in customs broker licence inquiry can be rectified through remand: Delhi High Court. *  GSTR-2A mismatch alone can’t justify ITC denial without invoice-wise verification; personal hearing mandatory: GSTAT. *  GST order passed without uploading personal hearing notices violates sec. 75(4): Allahabad High Court. *  TAX EVASION - Sec. 74 GST SCN quashed for not spelling out fraud, wilful misstatement or suppression: Allahabad High Court. *  STPI’s SOFTEX certification and NoC charges taxable as business support services: CESTAT. *  Suspicion can’t replace proof: CESTAT quashes penalty in alleged gold-smuggling operation. *   Limitation runs from communication of order: Madras High Court upholds rejection of delayed GST Appeals. *  Rajasthan High Court quashes GST demand over unsigned show cause notice. *  ITC recovery upheld where supplier failed to deposit GST: Rajasthan High Court. *  Customs commissioner’s empowered to make port trust liable for duty on pilfered goods: Supreme Court. *  Rectification proceedings can’t be used to challenge an uncontested GST assessment through a writ petition: Andhra Pradesh HC. *  GST proceedings against deceased proprietor unsustainable without notice to legal heir: GSTAT. *  Mere availment of ineligible self-assessed ITC doesn’t amount to suppression without evidence of fraud or wilful misstatement: GSTAT. *  Disposal of mining overburden by entity authorised by mining lease holder constitutes taxable service: CESTAT. *  Toll plaza data not mandatory for ITC refund: GSTAT. *  Disputed GST fraud allegations require investigation: Punjab and Haryana High Court makes interim bail absolute in alleged fraud and GST fraud case. *  Non-manufacturer contractor liable to deposit excess excise duty collected from buyer: CESTAT. *  GST order can’t reject taxpayer’s reply as “not satisfactory” without reasons: Madhya Pradesh High Court. *  Uncorroborated statements can’t establish alleged diversion of duty-free goods: CESTAT. *  Erection services were not liable to service tax prior to 10th september 2004: CESTAT. *  Sec. 74 GST notice must spell out statutory ingredients for invoking extended tax demand proceedings: Allahabad High Court. *  No jurisdictional bar under section 6(2)(b) in parallel CGST SGST proceedings: Delhi High Court refuses to bypass GST appeal remedy. *  Madras High Court remits GST demand for fresh adjudication after taxpayer claims it was unaware of SCN following business closure.  

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