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/2013-14/2107

Issue:- Whether endorsed Bill of Entry is valid document for availing Credit ?

Case:- ADVANCED ENZYME TECHNOLOGIES LTD Vs COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, THAN-I

Citation:- 2014-TIOL-438-CESTAT-MUM

Brief facts:-The appeal was directed against Order-in-Appeal No. TH-I/41-42/2011 dated 14/11/2011 passed by Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), Mumbai. Vide the impugned order, the Ld. Lower appellate authority had upheld the denial of Cenvat Credit amounting to Rs.3,12,809/- along with interest thereon and by imposing penalty of Rs.10,000/- on the appellant, M/s. Advanced Enzyme Technologies Ltd.

 

Appellant’s contentions:-The Ld. Consultant submitted that in this case the appellant imported a consignment of berol powder from Singapore and the import documents for the consignment was filled in the name of the appellant's unit at Pitampur, Indore, which was a unit in SEZ. However, the consignment was meant for the unit at Pali, Shahapur, Dist Thane. The Indore unit endorsed the bill of entry and the consignment was received directly at Thane unit after imports. The only ground for denial for the Cenvat credit was the bill of entry was endorsed in favour of the Thane unit by the Pitampur unit and the endorsed of bill of entry was not a valid document for availing Cenvat Credit under Rule 9 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. There was no dispute whatsoever about having paid the CVD on the consignment or about receipt of the consignment at Thane unit. It was his contention that the appellant was rightly entitled for the credit on the strength of the endorsed bill of entry since the bill of entry was a specified document for availment of credit. He relied on the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Sona Koyo Steering Systems Ltd. Vs. CCE, Delhi-III, Gurgaon - 2013 (296) ELT 481 (Tri-Del.) = (2014-TIOL-72-CESTAT-DEL), CCE &C, Vadodara-II Vs. Eupec-Welspun Pipe Coatings India Ltd. - 2010 (260) ELT 381 (Guj.) = (2009-TIOL-777-HC-AHM-CX) affirmed by the Apex Court in 2010 (260) ELT A83 (SC). Bando India (P) Ld. Vs. CCE, Delhi-III - 2010 (262) ELT 1103 (Tri-Del) = (2010- TIOL-1679-CESTAT-DEL)and the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of UOI Vs. Marmagoa Steel Ltd. - 2008 (229) ELT 481 (SC) = (2008-TIOL-249-SC-CX). In all these decisions, it had been consistently and uniformly held that Cenvat Credit can be availed on the strength of endorsed bill of entry. Therefore, he pleaded for allowing the appeal.

 

Respondent’s contentions:-The Ld. AR appearing for the Revenue on the other hand relied on the decision in the case of Balmer Lawrie & Co. Ltd. Vs. CCE, Kanpur - 2000 (116) ELT 364 (Tri) = (2002-TIOL-155-CESTAT-DEL-LB)wherein the Tribunal had taken a view that endorsed invoice was not a relevant document for availing of credit. Accordingly, he pleaded that availing of credit on the endorsed bill of entry was not permissible in law.

 

Reasons of judgment:-In the present case, there was no dispute that the imported consignments had not suffered CVD or the said consignment had not been received at the appellant's premises at Thane. The only dispute was that the bill of entry was endorsed by the Pitampur unit to the Thane unit, since the foreign supplier had indicated the address of the Pitampur unit in the relevant documents. Since bill of entry was a specified document, on the strength of which the Cenvat Credit can be availed, an endorsed bill of entry was also an equally valid document for availing credit. By endorsement only the name of the consignee was changed. This Tribunal in the cases (cited supra) and the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the Eupec-Welspun Pipe Coatings India Ltd. case (cited supra) had held that credit can be availed on the strength of endorsed bill of entry also and the said decision was affirmed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the same case. Thus there was no merit in the Revenue's contention that credit cannot be taken on the strength of endorsed bill of entry.

 

In view of the above findings, the impugned order was set aside and the appeal was allowed with consequential relief, if any, in accordance with law.

 
 
 

Decision:- Appeal allowed.

Comment:- The essence of this case is that endorsed Bill of Entry shall be considered as a valid document for availing Cenvat Credit.

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