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-LAW/2015-16/2745

Refund of accumulated credit to exporter is admissible in cash.

Case:-STANDARD BATTERIES LTD VERSUSCOMMISSIONER OF C. EX., MUMBAI-III

Citation:- 2014 (307) E.L.T. 601 (Tri. - Mumbai)

Brief Facts:-Brief facts of the case are that the appellant is the manufacturer of batteries which they were exporting outside India. In one of the clearance, the foreign buyer has cancelled the order and the same was supplied to the Indian Navy. As supply to the Indian Navy is exempted from excise dutytherefore, before clearing the goods, the appellant reversed the input credit availed pertaining to the said clearance. The Revenue was of the view that as the appellant was not maintaining a separate account for their exempted as well as dutiable final products therefore, they are required to reverse 8% of the value of the exempted goods. During the course of investigation, the appellant paid a sum of Rs. 2,00,000/- and Rs. 11,32,694.69/- through Cenvat credit account. Later on, the matter travelled up to this Tribunal and this Tribunal held that as the appellant has already reversed the input credit pertaining to the clearance to the Indian Navy therefore, they are not required to pay 8% of the value of the exempted goods. In these circumstances, a refund of Rs. 11,32,694.69 was to be given to the appellant. Accordingly, the appellant filed a refund claim. The adjudicating authority has sanctioned a sum of Rs. 2,00,000/- in cash and the remaining amount he held that the said amount will be credited in Cenvat account. Aggrieved by the same, the appellant is in appeal before this Tribunal.
 
Appelants Contention:-The learned Counsel for the appellant submits that as the factory of the appellant is closed therefore, the appellant is not in a position to maintain the CENVAT account. Hence the refund amount ought to have been paid in cash as per the Circular No. 220/54/1996-CX, dated 4-6-1996. Cenvat credit is accumulated in their account due to export of the goods and the same could not be utilized by the appellant as their factory is closed.
 
Respondents Contention:-On the other hand, the learned AR submits that as they have reversed the amount from their CENVAT credit account therefore, the amount can be refunded to the CENVAT credit
 
Reasoning of Judgement:-Considered the submissions and perused the records.
Vide Circular No. 220/54/1996-C.E., dated 4-6-1996 the issue was examined and decided as under :-
“2.The matter has been examined by the Board. Cash refund of the unutilized Modvat credit is an incentive given to manufacturers and exporters and non-grant of such claim will affect the competitiveness of the Indian industry in the International market. Accordingly I am directed to say that all such refund claims filed under the provisions of Rule 57F(4) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 should be decided expeditiously, wherever the manufacturer is not able to utilize the credit of duty, allowed under Rule 57A against the goods exported during the quarter/month to which the claim relates.”
It is not in dispute that theappellant is an exporter and the said CENVAT credit is accumulated in the CENVAT credit account due to the exports only. It is also a fact on record that the factory is closed therefore, the appellant is not able to utilize the amount lying in the CENVAT credit account. Accordingly, as per the Circular cited above, the appellant is entitled to take the amount in cash. Therefore, tribunal directed the concerned authorities to issue the refund in cash to the appellant. The appeal is disposed of in the above terms.
 
Decision:- Appeal disposed off.

Comment:- The crux of the case is that the refund of accumulated cenvat credit on account of exports is admissible to the exporter in cash and this is also strengthened by Circular No. 220/54/1996-CX, dt 4-6-1996.

Prepared By:- Neelam Jain
 
 
 

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