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/2012-13/1264

The custom duty prevalent on the date of order of permitting clearance will be payable.
 
 

Case:-COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, CUSTOMS AND SERVICE TAX-BBSR-I V/S KASHVI POWER AND STEEL P LTD
 
Citation: - 2012-TIOL-1277-CESTAT-KOL
 
Brief Facts:- The present appeal was filed by the appellant-revenue for seeking stay for the operation of Order-in-Appeal No. 01-02/Cus/BBSR-I/2012 dated 17.0.1.2012, whereby the ld. Commissioner (Appeals) has upheld the refund of export duty paid by the respondent-assessee.
 
Appellant’s contention:-  The appellant-revenue contended that the let export was on 25.2.2011 and the goods were not loaded in the vessel. They submit that the rate of export duty was enhanced from 5% to 20%. The contention is that consequent upon this change of rate of duty, shipping bill was reassessed to duty and the duty was paid by the respondent. Further their contention is that Section 16 of Customs Act, 1962 provides that the relevant date of determination of rate of duty for export is loading of goods. Section 26 of the Customs Act, 1962, provides for grant of refund of export duty and the provision has not been complied with in this case. Therefore, the respondents are not entitled for refund of the export duty. They relies on the Tribunal's decision in the case of Gujarat Co-op. Milk Marketing Federation Ltd. V/s. CC, Ahmedabad reported in 2007 (220) ELT 914 (Tri.-Ahmd.) = (2007-TIOL-1625-CESTAT-AHM). They contended that the issue relating to unjust enrichment has also not been examined in this case.
 
Respondent’s Contention:-The respondent submit that the order permitting clearance and loading of the goods was dated 25.2.2011 and the rate of duty applicable on that date was 5% and they were directed by the Department to pay duty enhanced w.e.f. 1.3.2011, which they have paid under protest. They contended that Section 26 of the Customs Act, 1962 is not applicable in their case, since it is not a case for return or re-import of the goods. Further Section 27 of the Customs Act, 1962, does not make any distinction for refund in case of export or import. It was further submitted that let export was given on 25.2.2011 and they have accordingly paid the duty applicable on the said date. In support of their contention, they placed reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Prima Mineral Exports Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Union of India - 2010 (257) ELT 414 (Bom.) wherein it was held that Let Export Order is made for unloading of the goods for exportation in accordance with law under Section 51 of the said Act.
 
Reasoning of Judgment: - The Hon’ble CESTAT held that as per Section 16 of the Customs Act, 1962, the rate of duty applicable shall be with reference to the date on which proper officer makes order permitting clearance and loading of the goods for exportation in accordance with Section 51 of the said Act. Undisputedly, the order was given on 25.2.11 under Section 16 of the Customs Act, 1962. The Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Prima Mineral Exports Pvt. Ltd. has taken a similar view. In these circumstances, they do not find any merit in the stay application filed by the Revenue.
 
 
Decision: - stay not granted.

Comment:- This decision has clearly underlined the rule that custom duty is payable on rate applicable on the date of order of clearance by custom authorities and not on the date of receipt of goods or on the date of filing of Bill of entry.
 
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