Chartered Accountant
Bookmark and Share
click here to subscribe our newsletter
 
 
Corporate News *  GST registration cancellation without reasons amounts to ‘Economic Death’ of business: Supreme Court. *  No GST refund if appeal before GSTAT is filed late: Gujarat High Court. *  Mere upload of GST notice on portal not valid service, appeal limitation won’t start: Punjab & Haryana High Court. *  Taxpayer can’t be penalised for missing notices hidden under ‘Additional Notices/Orders’: Calcutta High Court allows fresh adjudication. *  State tax officer can’t issue GST SCN beyond CBIC-assigned jurisdiction: Bombay High Court stays recovery proceedings. *  Earlier 7.5% Pre-Deposit must count towards mandatory 10% for Appeal: Uttarakhand high court quashes CESTAT Order. *  Third Parties can’t challenge GST Advance Rulings merely due to financial impact: Karnataka HC *  GST SCN generated using AI tool quashed: Punjab & Haryana High Court *  Bank Attachment Quashed as Madras HC Quashes GST Order Issued Against Deceased Person *  ITC Blocking Order for Failure to Record ‘Reason to Believe’ U/R 86A Quashed: Allahabad High Court *  Govt Extends GSTAT Appeal Filing Deadline From 30 June to July 31, 2026 *  GST Demand on RWA Stayed: Allahabad High Court Questions Taxability of Electricity Distribution to Flat Owners *  CBIC Clarifies Jurisdiction After GST Registration Transfer: Earlier Proceedings Remain Valid, New Officer to Continue Action *  GST authorities’ certification not mandatory for reimbursement, but tax payment must be proven: Karnataka HC *  Contractor can’t seek gst reimbursement through writ when contract has arbitration clause: Karnataka HC *  Unsigned Order Is No Order in Law: AP HC Quashes GST Assessment Order for Want of Officer’s Signature *  Customs Can’t Levy Rs. 1.36 Crore Cost Recovery Charges Without Proof of Full-Day Officer Deployment: CESTAT  *  12% IGST Payable On Imported Dialysis Machine Parts: CESTAT *  Bombay High Court Admits Challenge to GST Limitation Extension Notifications; Grants Protection Against Coercive Recovery *  Criminal Case Can’t Run Parallel to GST Proceedings on Same Facts: Allahabad High Court *  Allahabad High Court Stays GST Detention Order; Directs Release of Vehicle and Goods on Deposit of Rs. 1.44 Lakh *  Service Tax Can’t Be Levied on Loss-Making Contracts: Gujarat High Court *  GSTN Mandates Ship-to GSTIN in e-Invoice and e-Way Bill APIs; Introduces Voluntary e-Way Bill Closure Facility from August 1, 2026 *  GST Appeal Can’t Be Rejected as Time-Barred When Taxpayer Was Pursuing Rectification Remedy: Telangana High Court *  Absence of E-Way Bill and Transport Documents Justifies Customs Seizure U/s 110: Gauhati HC *  Madras High Court Upholds GST Late Fee and Penalty for Non-Filing of Annual Return, Dismisses Challenge  *  GST Records, Purchase Documents Sufficient to Discharge Burden Under Customs Act: CESTAT Orders Release of 3.65 Kg Gold  *  No Sugar Cess Payable on Sugar Exported Out of India: CESTAT *  Road Construction Services Exempt and SCN Time-Barred: CESTAT Quashes Service Tax Demand Based Solely on Form 26AS  *  ITC Freeze Upheld After GST Dept Find Suppliers Were Allegedly Fake Bill-Trading Entities: Madras HC 
Subject News *  Input service benefits can’t be denied: CESTAT allows export refund despite MMTC acting as Canalising agency. *  No service tax demand without proof of service of SCN: CESTAT. *  Service tax demand quashed as dept. fails to prove service of SCN: CESTAT *  GST : Mere allegation of inadequate consideration of reply not enough to invoke writ jurisdiction: Delhi High Court *  Onerous conditions imposed for provisional release of seized imported goods shouldn’t amount to virtual denial of relief: CESTAT. *  GST SCN without alleging fraud cannot invoke sec. 74: Karnataka High Court quashes adjudication order. *  Extended Limitation Can’t Be Invoked Merely on Form 26AS Data: CESTAT *  Revenue-Sharing with Restaurants Not Taxable as Business Support Service: CESTAT *  R. 6(3) Option Can’t Be Forced on Taxpayer; CESTAT Quashes Rs. 12.36 Crore CENVAT Credit Demand *  Excise Duty | Power Consumption Alone Can’t Prove Clandestine Manufacture: Karnataka High Court *  Madras High Court Examines DGGI’s Authority to Issue GST Penalty Orders Under Section 122, Adds DGGI as Party *  Proceedings under omitted r. 96(10) can’t survive without saving clause: andhra pradesh high court quashes gst refund recovery *  Excise duty power consumption alone can’t prove clandestine manufacture: karnataka high court *  Madras high court rules GST show cause notices must disclose grounds for invoking extended limitation *  Court Can’t Direct Extension GST Return Deadlines or Waive Interest and Penalties: Karnataka High Court *  GST Notifications Can’t Go Beyond GST Council Recommendations: Madras High Court Quashes SCN on Branded Pulses *  Appeal Can’t Be Dismissed for Delay When Dept’s Own Order Mis-states Limitation Period: CESTAT *  No Evidence of KYC or Due Diligence Breach By Customs Broker: CESTAT Quashes Licence Revocation in Export Overvaluation Case *  Glucometers Are Chemical Analysis Instruments Classifiable Under Tariff Heading 9027: CESTAT *  Validity of Post-GST Service Tax Proceedings Upheld: Gujarat High Court Dismisses Challenge to S. 73 SCN *  Rectified GST Refund Applications Can’t Be Rejected as Time-Barred If Original Refund Claim Was Filed Within Limitation: Gujarat HC *  Service Tax Refund Can’t Be Denied as Time-Barred When Levy Itself Is Unconstitutional: Gujarat High Court *  Same Officer Can’t Act As Auditor & Adjudicator: Karnataka High Court *  Karnataka High Court Condones 324-Day Delay, Revives Customs Appeal in Jewellery Pilferage Case  *  Madras High Court Quashes GST Assessment Order Passed Ex Parte Despite Prior ITC Reversal; Lifts Bank Attachment *  Tobacco Process Doesn’t Amount to Manufacturing: Madras High Court Quashes Rs. 1.32 Crore Compensation Cess Demand  *  Recovery Notice Unsustainable After Voluntary Reversal of Unutilised Credit: CESTAT  *  GST | ‘System Generated’ SCN Without Officer Details Invalid: Allahabad HC  *  Electronic Records Without Statutory Certification Requirements Can’t Justify Undervaluation Allegations: CESTAT *  Madras High Court Stays GST Order, Finds Prima Facie Merit in Plea Against S. 74 Proceedings Based on S. 73 Intimation  

Comments

Print   |    |  Comment

PJ/Case Law/2014-15/2358

No fee is payable in respect of appeals relating to rebate.

Case:-COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE Vs M/s GLYPH INTERNATIONAL LTD.
 
Citation:-2014-TIOL-525-HC-ALL-ST
 
Brief facts:-The appeal by the revenue arises from a decision of the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal dated 2 July 2013.
 
 The appeal seeks to raise the following questions of law.
 
"(i) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the CESTAT, New Delhi has committed an error of Law in holding that no fees is payable in filing appeals before the CESTAT relating to refund/rebate of Service Tax, Customs and  Central Excise matters?
 
(ii) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the CESTAT, New Delhi has gravely erred in interpreting the provisions of Section 86 (6) of the Finance Act, 1994 and holding that no fees is payable in filing appeal before the CESTAT relating to refund/rebate of Service Tax, Customs and Central Excise matter depriving the revenue to collect fee from the parties from all over India with regard to filing of appeals in the matters of refund/rebate of Service Tax, Customs and Central Excise matters?”
 
Reasoning of judgment:-:-Section 86 (6) of the Finance Act, 1994 provides as follows:
 
"An appeal to the appellate Tribunal shall be in the prescribed form and shall be verified in the prescribed manner and shall, irrespective of the date of demand of service tax and interest or of levy of penalty in relation to which the appeal is made, be accompanied by a fee of,-
 
a. Where the amount of service tax and interest demand and penalty levied by any Central Excise Office in the case to which the appeal relates is five lakh rupees or less, one thousand rupees;
 
b. Where the amount of service tax and interest demanded and penalty levied by any Central Excise Officer in the case to which the appeal relates is more than lakh rupees but not exceeding fifty lakh rupees, five thousands, rupees;
 
c. Where the amount of service tax and interest demanded and penalty levied by any Central Excise Officer in the case of which the appeals relates is more than fifty lakh rupees, ten thousand rupees:
 
Provided that no fees shall be payable in the case of an appeal referred to in subsection(2) or sub-section (2A) or a memorandum of cross-objections referred to in sub-section (4)."
 
Section 86 (6) refers to the fee which has to accompany an appeal. The fees are respectively 1000 rupees, 5000 rupees and 10,000 rupees based on "the amount of service tax and interest demanded and penalty" levied. Where the service tax and interest demand and penalty levied is rupees five lakhs or less, the fee is one thousand rupees; where the service tax and interest demanded and penalty levied is more than five lakhs but does not exceed rupees fifty lakhs, the fee is five thousand rupees; and where the amount of service tax and interest demanded and penalty levied is more than fifty lakhs, the fee is ten thousand rupees.
 
Section 86 (6) does not speak of a refund/rebate. As the Tribunal has correctly held, there isno residuary provision in Section 86 (6).
 
On the contrary, prior to 1 November 2004 when Section 86 (6) came into force, the earlier provision was as follows:
 
"(6) An appeal to the appellate Tribunal shall be in the prescribed form and shall be verified in the prescribed manner and shall, except in the case of an appeal referred to in subsection (2) of sub section (4), be accompanied by a fee of two hundred rupees."
 
The earlier provision, therefore, was for the payment of a fee of rupees two hundred in case of every appeal (save for the excepted category). The present provision does not contain an analogous arrangement.
In the circumstances, there is no error in the interpretation which has been placed by the Tribunal upon the provisions of 86 (6) of the Finance Act, 1994.
In view of the above, this appeal will not raise any substantial question of law. The appeal is, accordingly, dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.
 
 
Decision:- Appeal dismissed.
 
Comment:- The essence of this case is that no fees is payable for filing appeal in the Tribunal when the matter pertains to that of rebate or refund claim.  
 
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