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/2013-14/2107

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