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/2013-14/1893

Merely because some fabrics were pasted on books does not means that exemption that is provided to books is not admissible.

Case:-HONESTY SUBSCRIPTION AGENCY Vs COMMR. OF CUS. (CSI AIRPORT), MUMBAI

Citation:-2013 (291) E.L.T. 570 (Tri. - Mumbai)

Brief Facts:-The appellant, M/s. HonestySubscription Agency, imported printed materials from M/s. Pantone Inc. USA, which were books relating to subject of textile colour designing/matching. There were eight categories of technical book, namely, (i) Colour Passport (ii) F+H Colour Planner (iii) F+H Textile Colour Guide (iv) F+H Textile Specifier/Guide (v) Solid Chips (vi) Formula Guide Coated/uncoated (vii) VCP fall 2010 (viii) Pantone Colour Cue 2.0 and claimed exemption Notification No. 21/2002 claiming classification under Heading 4901 10 10. The original adjudicating authority classified the goods under Heading 4901 99 00 and denied the exemption on the ground that the goods under importation were not in the nature of printed books. The appellant preferred an appeal before the lower appellate authority in respect of all the items except (viii) and the lower appellate authority after considering the appeal allowed the exemption in respect of the item mentioned at (iii) to (vi) mentioned above. In respect of item number specified at Sl. No. (i), (ii) & (vii) he rejected the assessee’s claim to consider them as printed material on the ground that the major portion is in the form of small rectangular swatches of variously coloured textiles passed on white sheets and therefore, they cannot be called as printed books. As regards the VCP fall 2010 no sample was produced before the appellate authority and therefore, he did not accept the contention of the appellant. Consequently, the appellant has preferred appeal to the Tribunal.

Appellant Contention:-The appellant  submits that all the three items have matter printed on paper apart from coloured textile materials pasted on the paper. Merely because some fabrics samples have been pasted on the books, it does not cease to be a book and the fabric samples are an integral part of the book and therefore, the item as a whole has to be considered as printed books. He further submits that these items bear ISBN number also in respect of colour passport and colour planner. He also produced before us a copy of VCP Fall 2010, which is similar in nature to the other items and contains printed materials. Accordingly, he pleads for allowing the appeal.

Respondent Contention:-The respondent reiterates the findings of the lower authorities.

Reasoning of Judgement:-It was observed that both colour passport and F+H colour planner have introductory text and all pages have printed material on them including rectangular strips/chips of colour of textile material. Obviously, a textile material cannot be printed on a paper and has to be pasted. Further, below every textile chip the colour name and code is printed. Merely because the textile material occupies more space it cannot be stated that they are not books. For examples, in a book containing many photographs, the photograph may occupy more space that the printed matter. That does not mean that it is a photo album and not a book. Further, we notice that both colour passport and colour planner bear ISBN numbers, which is also indicative that they are in the nature of books. Similarly, in the case of VCP fall 2010, the product is very similar to colour passport and colour planner, the only difference being it does not have a ISBN number. In other words it has printed matter on paper on every page and therefore, it is not necessary to give a different treatment to the said items.

In view of the above findings, the appeal filed by the appellant is allowed.

Decision:-Appeal allowed.
 
Comment:-The gist of this case is that merely because some textile material is pasted on the papers, it cannot be contended by the revenue department that the imported goods are not books and are not eligible for availment of exemption. 

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