Chartered Accountant
Bookmark and Share
click here to subscribe our newsletter
 
 
Corporate News *  The GSTN has issued an Advisory dated 21.04.2026 about the introduction of an Offline Tool for the Invoice Management System (IMS)  *  CBIC extends due dates for filing of FORM GSTR 3B  for the month of April 2026 *  Interest cannot be imposed in adjudication order, if not demanded/quantified in show cause notice : Allahabad HC *  Wheelchairs with toileting facility eligible for exemption: CESTAT affirms customs duty exemption to importer *  Industries urge GST council to allow inverted duty refunds on input services *  Tamil Nadu GST dept introduced virtual hearing facility for GST appeals under under section 107 of the TNGST act: detailed guidelines  *  CIC urges authorities to implement GST evasion complaint tracking system *  Even if the assessee opts "NO" for personal hearing in form DRC-06 ,The mandatory requirement under section 75(4) to grant opportunity of hearing cannot be waived:Gujarat High Court  *  Glufosinate imports curbs imposed by govt *  Government extends Re-import period for exported cut & polished diamonds *  CIC flags lack of tracking system for tax evasion complaints,urges GST authorities to improve transparency *  No Custodial Interrogation needed in GST fraud case based on documentary evidence already in Department's Possession : Chattisgarh HC *  Orders under section cannot be sustained if passed without considering the taxpayer's objections and without granting a personal hearing:Gujarat High Court *  Mere cancellation of supplier's registration cannot,by itself,justify denial of ITC or cancellation of the recipient's registration:Bombay High Court *  High Court sets aside GST notice citing factual errors and natural justice violations *  Provisional Bank Attachment under Section. 110 of Customs Act Unsustainable Beyond Statutory period without Extension order: Bombay HC orders to defreeze accounts *  Post Clearance MRP Alteration by Distributor Does not attract Differential Customs Duty: CESTAT *  DGFT Expands scope of 'Screws' classification under RoDTEP Scheme  *  E-way bills surze to all time high of 140.6 million in March *  GST Exemption Allowed on Pure Labour Services for Standalone Houses: AAR  *  GST Payable Only on Margin in Second-Hand Car Sales, Subject to Strict Conditions and No ITC Claim: AAR *  DGFT rolls out procedure for allocation of calcined coke *  GST portal update : Pre-deposit amount now editable in Appeals *  J&K HC declared TMT scrap a 'Specified Good' eligibile for GST refunds under Support Scheme  *  Pigmy agents are employees of banks; no GST can be levied on commission  paid to them : Karnataka HC *  DGFT Revises HS Code Description for Screws Under RoDTEP *  GST Registration Cancellation Invalid Without Proper Service of Notice: Allahabad High Court. *  Bengaluru CGST | GST Backlog Appeals Deadline Fixed at June 30, 2026 *  No Time Bar on Refund of Service Tax for Services Not Rendered: CESTAT  Remands Indiabulls Case for Unjust Enrichment Check. *  Supreme Court Holds Renewable Energy Incentive Must Benefit Generators, Not Be Adjusted in Tariff
Subject News *   Delhi HC Quashes Order, Says Reminder Cannot Validate Improperly Served GST SCN *  KARNATAKA HIGH COURT REMANDS GST SHORTFALL MATTER DUE TO ABSENCE OF PERSONAL HEARING   *  CESTAT cancels confiscation and penalties on imported computer cabinet cases: Custom duty restricted to 111 surplus units *  Deposit of tax during search or investigation cannot be treated as 'Voluntary Payment' : Bombay High Court *  Section 76 of the CGST cannot be invoked where the tax has already been duly deposited, even if through another registration of the same entity: Madras High Court *  Sec 74 allows use of material regardless of source; illegality or flaws in section 67 search do not vitiate valid adjudication: HC *  Inter-State transfer of ITC on Amalgamation permissible as given under section 18(3) read with rule 41 of the CGST rules, 2017: Gujarat High Court *  HC: No GST on commisson paid to Pigmy Agents *  IGST refund denial on illegible bill of lading invalid absent chance to furnish docs; merit reconsideration in appeals directed: HC *  ITC is not admissible on GST paid on leasehold rights of land used fpr setting up an air seperation plant: AAAR,Tamil Nadu *  GST: No penalty under Section 74 after voluntary ITC reversal due to non-existent supplier : High Court *  TN AAAR denies GST ITC on Land Lease under Sec. 17(5)(d) for setting up plant and machinery *  GST proceedings quashed as notices sent to old address, despite updated address in registration *  Importer Can’t Be Penalised for Alleged IGCR Procedural Lapses Without Evidence of Departmental Error: CESTAT *  Structured Healthcare Training Not ‘Charitable Activity’, 18% GST Payable: AAR  *  CESTAT As The Appellate Authority For Central Sales Tax Disputes: A Paradigm Shift Under Finance Act, 2023 *   Rs. 25K Cost Imposed On SGST Joint Commissioner for Attaching Bank  Accounts Without Forming Mandatory “Opinion”: Bombay HC *   Ex-Parte GST Order Without Hearing Violates Natural Justice: Karnataka  High Court Quashes Adjudication and Bank Attachment.  *   Retrospective GST Cancellation Can’t Invalidate Genuine Transactions:  Jaipur Commissioner (Appeals) Quashes Rs. 95,670 ITC Demand. *   GST Pre-Deposit Non-Compliance: Allahabad High Court Allows Appeal  Subject to Rs. 30 Lakh Balance Deposit, Recognises Offline Filing. *  Documentary Nature of Evidence: Allahabad High Court Grants Bail in Rs. 32.66 Crore Fake ITC Fraud Case *  Supreme Court Flags Systemic Bias in Army’s Permanent Commission Process for Women Officers *  Re-Determination of Land Compensation Can Be Based on Appellate Court Awards, Clarifies Scope of S. 28-A: Supreme Court. *  Supreme Court Imposes Rs. 5 Lakh Costs On Rent Authority Officer For Acting Beyond Jurisdiction. *  DGGI Meerut | Court Denies Bail to Accused in Claiming Fake ITC And Export Refunds *  Denial of GST Rate Revision Benefit to Contractor Violates Article 14: Rajasthan HC *  GST Registration Cancellation for Non-Filing of Returns: Gauhati High Court Directs Restoration on Compliance. *   Supreme Court Quashes FEMA Adjudication Orders, Revives Proceedings at  Show Cause Stage. *   Higher Rank, Harsher Punishment Justified: Supreme Court Restores Dismissal  of Bank Manager in Misappropriation Case. *   Limitation for Export Refund to Be Counted from Foreign Exchange Realisation,  Not From Export Invoices Issuance: CESTAT  

Comments

Print   |    |  Comment

PJ/Case Laws/2011-12/1540

Pre-deposit order - amendment of

Case: IDEAL EXPORTS Vs COMMISSIONER CUSTOMS ICD TKD
 
Citation: 2012-TIOL-61-HC-DEL-CUS
 
Issue:- Non-fulfillment of export obligation – Non-payment of duty for 11 years – Bank guarantee invoked by Department – some amount of customs duty due paid by assessee – pre-deposit of remaining customs duty in equal installments in extended period allowed considering the peculiar circumstances.
 
Brief Facts:- Appellant had imported 144.163 MTs of Brass Scrap in 1998. They did not pay any import duty on said scrap as the appellant had furnished an undertaking that they would fulfill the obligation of export of 134.105 MTs in form of builder hardware. As per notification, the appellant was required to submit details of exports made within one month from the expiry of the period of export obligation but this was not submitted.
 
Revenue contended that appellant had only fulfilled 14.977% of the export obligation and had exported brass hardware weighing 20.0849 MTs. The appellant had failed to account and meet the export obligation in respect to the balance brass scrap which was imported.
 
Thus, show cause notice was issued and demand of duty was raised.
 
Appellant had earlier filled an appeal against the adjudication order which was allowed by the Tribunal with a view to grant one opportunity to the appellant to produce evidence to show that they had fulfilled the export obligations. In spite of the said opportunity appellant could not produce evidence to show that they had fulfilled the export obligation and had exported hardware of the requisite quantity.
 
In appeal, the Tribunal directed appellant to deposit the balance amount of the customs duty which was payable on the un-exported quantum of the brass scrap. Appellant invoked the bank guarantee and have recovered Rs. 7, 95, 186/- and the appellant had paid Rs. 3 lakhs on 22.02.2008 as pre-deposit when the eralier appeal was filed. Appellant was to make the payment of Rs. 10, 28, 337/-. The Tribunal directed the appellant to make this payment.
 
Thus, the Tribunal dismissed the Miscellaneous Applications filled by appellant in which prayer was made that the order dismissing their application for waiver of pre-deposit should be recalled and complete waiver of pre-deposit should be made.
 
Aggrived by the order of the Tribunal, appellant are in appeal before the High Court.
 
Appellant’s Contention:-  Appellant contended that the Tribunal has failed to consider the legal position that the appellant had achieved 67.9% of export requirement in value of terms. It was further submitted that they have passed through very difficult times and is almost in a mental wreck. Lastly it was submitted that appellant may be granted time to make payment of the pre-deposit in monthly installments of Rs. 50, 000/- each.
 
Respondent’s Contention:- As per the respondent the appellant had only fulfilled 14.977% of the export obligation and had exported brass hardware weighting 20.0849 MTs.
 
Reasoning of Judgment:- The High Court held that from facts shortfall in export was established. It was noted that the the customs duty, interest etc. have remained unpaid for last 11 years as the export obligation, as per license had expired on 5.11.2000.
 
It was held that the contention of the appellant that the authorities have failed to examine the plea with regard to FOB value is not correct as the Commissioner of Customs has specifically examined and rejected the same. It was noted that the Commissioner had held that it was necessary for the appellant to export the reqyuuired quantity in MTs. The requirement of value addition is an additional requirement and not the primary condition or an alternative condition. The primary condition as the per the Commissioner is the requirement to fulfill the quantity requirement i.e. in MTs. It was held that the appellant has not produced before the Court the notification under which the duty free import was made and has not tried to establish and show that the value addition requirement is a primary condition and not the additional requirement.
 
With regard to request for extending time limit of making payment of balance amount of customs duty as pre-deposit, the High Court granted extension of 3 months considering the peculiar circumstances and hardship of the appellant.   
 
Decision:- Appeal disposed off accordingly.  

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