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/2015-16/2607

No duty recoverable on cut flowers cleared in DTA because they are non-excisable.

Case:- COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, PUNE-I VERSUS NEHA INTERNATIONAL LTD.
 
Citation:-2015 (315) E.L.T. 89 (Tri. - Mumbai)


Brief facts:- Revenue is in appeals before them against the order of Commissioner (Appeals), dated 29-9-2004 whereby he had set aside the demands of duty of Rs. 21,68,083/- and Rs. 9,83,347/- and penalties against the respondent-M/s. Neha International Ltd.
The facts are that the respondent cleared Cut Flowers grown by their 100% EOU, into Domestic Tariff Area (DTA). The case of the respondent was that they have not availed any concession on indigenous inputs/raw materials and also did not use any imported inputs/raw materials. The Commissioner (Appeals) held that cut flowers are non-excisable and neither Customs duty nor Central Excise duty is demandable on the cut flowers cleared into DTA. The Commissioner (Appeals) relied on Vikram Ispatv. CCE, Mumbai-III - 2000 (120)E.L.T.800 (Tri.-LB)in which it was held that Customs duty is not leviable on DTA sales and only Central Excise duty can be charged under Section 3 of the Central Excise Act, 1944 in respect of the DTA clearances by 100% EOUs. He also relied similarly on Cosco Blossoms Pvt. Ltd.v. Commissioner of Customs, Delhi - 2004 (164)E.L.T.423 (Tri.-Del.).
 
Appellant’s contention:- The learned AR relied on the Grounds of Appeal filed by the Revenue. He referred to para 3 of Notification No. 126/94-Cus., dated 3-6-1994 which states that -
“3. Notwithstanding anything contained in this notification, the exemption contained herein shall also apply to -
(a) the said goods which on importation into India are used for the purposes of production, manufacture or packaging of articles and such articles (including rejects, waste and scrap material arising in the course of production, manufacture or packaging of such articles) even if not exported out of India are allowed to be sold in India under and in accordance with the Export-Import Policy and in such quantity and subject to such other limitations and conditions as may be specified in this behalf by the Development Commissioner, on payment of duty of excise leviable thereon under Section 3 of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 (1 of 1944) or where such articles (including rejects, waste and scrap material) are not excisable, customs duty equal in amount to that leviable on inputs obtained under this notification and used for the purpose of production, manufacture or packaging of such articles, which would have been paid, but for the exemption under this notification, shall be payable at the time of clearance of such articles.“
Revenue has also appealed on the ground that in the case of Cosco Blossoms Pvt. Ltd. (supra) this Tribunal observed that “however we make it clear that the revenue authorities will be at liberty to demand duty on the imported inputs if any used in the production of the cut flowers in question”.
 
Respondent’s contention:-None appeared for the respondent.
 
Reasoning of judgement:- The Hon’ble Tribunal find that in this case what is demanded is the Central Excise duty on the DTA clearances. The relevant part of the statute i.e. Section 3 of the Central Excise Act provides that the duties of excise which shall be levied and collected on any excisable goods manufactured by a 100% EOU shall be an amount equal to aggregate of the duties of Customs which would be leviable on like goods produced or manufactured outside India and if imported into India. Therefore, the law is very clear. What is charged on domestic clearances by 100% EOU is duty of excise. In this case the goods namely cut flowers are non-excisable. The judgements cited by the Commissioner support this obvious interpretation of Section 3. Revenue’s appeals on the ground that the Notification provides otherwise is not acceptable because a Notification cannot override the basic provision of law for charging duty. Revenue’s reference to Cosco Blossoms Pvt. Ltd. (supra) to justify the duty can be demanded on imported inputs is totally mis-placed and uncalled for because what was demanded in the show cause notice is Central Excise duty.
In view of the above, Revenue’s appeals are dismissed. Cross Objections filed by the respondent are also disposed of in the above terms.
 
Decision:- Appeal dismissed.
 
Comment:-The essence of the case is that as cut flowers are non-excisable, no duty can be levied on their DTA clearance by 100% EOU. This is for the reason that under section 3, what is charged on domestic clearances by 100% EOU is excise duty only. When the cut flowers are non-excisable, the question of levy of duty on their clearance does not arise.

Prepared by:- Monika Tak

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