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 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