Chartered Accountant
Bookmark and Share
click here to subscribe our newsletter
 
 
Corporate News *  Dept. Can’t Classify Product as Zarda Scented Tobacco After Repeatedly Approving It As Chewing Tobacco: CESTAT *  Mere Uploading Of GST Order On Portal Is Not “Valid” Service: Tripura HC *  CGST Can Proceed Even If SGST Closed Similar Case Earlier: Delhi HC *  SC upholds 28% GST on online gaming with retrospective effect. *  West Bengal Govt cuts E-way Bill Threshold limit to Rs. 50,000 for intra-state goods movement. *  Criminal Prosecution Under Central Excise Act Can’t Continue After CESTAT Sets Aside Duty Demand on Merits: Punjab & Haryana High Court. *  Madras High Court Quashes GST Assessment Orders for Denial of Personal Hearing; Remands Matter Subject to 10% Deposit *  Ex Parte GST Order: Madras High Court Directs Immediate Removal of Bank/ITC Attachment Upon 25% Deposit *  J.K. Cement Receives GST Demand Order of Rs 8,02,113/- from Ahmedabad Tax Authority *  Delhi Police EOW Busts Alleged Rs. 128 Crore GST Fake Invoice Network. *  REPLY TO SCN CAN’T BE TREATED AS “EMPTY FORMALITY”: ORISSA HIGH COURT QUASHES GST DEMAND OF RS. 57.30 LAKH *  Challenge to CGST Provisions restricting ITC to Bonafide Purchasers : Allahabad HC issues notice *  CBIC Notifies Revised Customs Tariff Values for Edible Oils, Gold, Silver, Brass Scrap and Areca Nuts *  Delhi HC Orders Removal of GST Attachment After Statutory 1 Year Period Expired *  GSTAT Extends Relaxed Appeal Filing Guidelines till December 31, 2026 *  AO fails to Provide Import - Export Data from DGFT to Taxpayer for Reconciliation *  Gold, Silver Imports To Get Costlier As Govt Raises Customs Duty To 10%  *  GSTAT Enables Pre-Payment Access to Document Upload and Checklist for GST Appeal Filing *  GST Portal Restrictions Can’t Override Statute: Gujarat HC Allows Cross-State Transfer Of CGST ITC After Amalgamation *  Centre Revises HS Codes for Large Diameter Steel Pipes Used in Oil & Gas Pipelines *  Customs Duty Liability Arises On Warehouse Clearance Date: Supreme Court *  Government lifts export ban on de-oiled rice bran *  CESTAT Grants 12% Interest on Pre-Deposit for Investigation from Date of Deposit till Refund and Denies Interest on Interest. *  Government Overhauls GST Classification Framework for Non-Alcoholic Beverages; Fruit Juice Drinks, Milk-Based Beverages and Caffeinated Drinks to Attract Revised 5% and 40% GST Rates from May 1, 2026 *  India’s gross GST collections hit a record Rs 2.42 lakh crore in April, up 8.7% *  Customs clearance stalled, revenue hit over MRP dispute *  Shipping Corporation explores Middle East routes as Hormuz tensions disrupt cargo movement *  India, Kenya signs MoU for exchange of pre-arrival customs information *  No demand of Taxes under Reverse Charge if Tax Already Discharged by Service Provider under forward charge *  The India-New Zealand Free Trade Agreement, signed "once-in-a-generation" deal that eliminates tariffs on 100% of Indian exports to New Zealand
Subject News *  Consignment Sales Can’t Be Reclassified as Inter-State Sales Based on Pre-Agreement Evidence: CESTAT *  Exporter Can’t Be Denied Advance Authorization Benefit Due To ICEGATE Technical Glitch: Delhi High Court *  No GST Demand For Mere Wrong Set-Off Of IGST Credit Under CGST And SGST Heads: Kerala HC. *  Cenvat Credit Can’t Be Denied on Input Services Having Nexus With Manufacturing Activities: CESTAT *  Pending Proceedings Can’t Survive Without Saving Clause: Calcutta High Court Quashes GST Demand of Rs. 6.28 Crore After Omission of Rule 96(10) *  Madras HC Quashes GST Demands on TASMAC (Tamil Nadu State Marketing Corporation) Bar Licence Fee *  GST Proceedings Cannot Survive Omitted Rule Without Saving Clause: Calcutta HC *  Provisional Release Can’t Be Denied Solely On Dept. Suspicion Of Misclassification And Undervaluation Of Imported Goods: CESTAT *  Businesses Should Not Be Kept Outside GST Regime Without Due Process: Gauhati High Court *  Punjab & Haryana HC Directs Reconsideration of Contractors’ Claim for Additional GST Payment After Tax Rate Hike From 12% to 18% *  S. 108 Statements Can’t Be Sole Basis Without Following Section 138B Procedure: CESTAT *  Bombay High Court Frames Key Questions on Mandatory Distribution of ITC U/s 20 CGST Act *  Filing of Annexure-B for Refund Applications involving Accumulated ITC using the offline utility in GST portal: GSTN *  No Service Tax on Parent Company’s Un-Invoiced Cost Allocations Without Actual Service or Consideration: CESTAT  *  Calcutta High Court Upholds GST Classification of Polypropylene Leno Bags as Plastic Products *  DRC-01 Summary Can’t Replace Mandatory SCN: Gauhati High Court *  GSTAT Issues Major Bench Allocation Framework; All Appeals to First Go Before Division Bench *  ITC Blocking Without Reasoned Order Violates Rule 86A; Punjab & Haryana HC Directs Release of Credit *  Allahabad HC Refuses Bail to CGST Superintendent In Rs. 70 Lakh Bribery Case *  S.130 Can’t Be Invoked Without Prior Tax Determination U/s 73/74: Allahabad High Court Quashes GST Confiscation Proceedings *  SC grants Bail to Rs 54cr GST case  *  Karnataka HC Sets Aside Duplicate GST Orders, Orders Fresh Hearing on GSTIN Cancellation *  DRC-01 Summary Can’t Replace Mandatory SCN: Gauhati High Court *  Transfer Of Unutilized ITC After Amalgamation - Supreme Court Issues Notice *  PUNJAB & HARYANA HC QUASHES GST CANCELLATION NOTICE FOR FAILURE TO PROVIDE CBIC ENQUIRY REPORT *  LICENSE FEE, TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE CHARGES NOT INCLUDIBLE IN CUSTOMS VALUE UNLESS THEY ARE A CONDITION OF SALE: CESTAT *  DELHI HC ORDERS REMOVAL OF GST ATTACHMENT AFTER STATUTORY 1 YEAR PERIOD EXPIRED *  CUSTOMS BROKER CAN’T BE FAULTED JUST BECAUSE EXPORTER’S GST REGISTRATION WAS PREVIOUSLY CANCELLED: CESTAT   *  Supreme Court Dismisses Review Plea Against Delhi HC Ruling Holding Real Operator Behind Fake GST Firms Liable As ‘Taxable Person  *  GST Appeal Can’t Be Rejected Merely Because DRC-07 Was Not Uploaded On Portal: Bombay High Court  

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