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/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