Chartered Accountant
Bookmark and Share
click here to subscribe our newsletter
 
 
Corporate News *  Missing seized records must be considered while testing ITC claim; duplicate GST demands ordered corrected: Delhi High Court. *  GST appeal can’t be rejected without addressing taxpayer’s grounds: Allahabad High Court. *  Surplus IGST credit can offset CGST, SGST shortfall: GSTAT. *  GST refund can’t be denied when cancelled airfares are returned with tax: GSTAT. *  3 Hearing notices issued within 2 minutes: Gujarat High Court flags portal flaw, seeks report. *  GSTR-9, GSTR-9C filing for FY 2025-26 enabled; pending GSTR-1 and GSTR-3B must be filed first. *  Dupattas are exempt fabrics, can’t be taxed as fibres at 4%: Madras High Court. *  Full transitional credit allowed on capital goods received after GST rollout: GSTAT denies Rs. 6.99 lakh export duty credit. *  GST return mismatch alone can’t justify fraud proceedings: GSTAT orders fresh adjudication under section 73. *  Supplier found non-existent later can’t alone justify input tax credit denial: GSTAT. *  GST interest stops once tax reaches government account, can’t run until return filing: GSTAT. *  Cancelled flat booking- GST refund can’t be denied without excluding COVID period from limitation: GSTAT. *  India notifies rules of origin for India–New Zealand FTA. *  Incomplete E-bike kits classifiable as complete vehicles, but not eligible for CKD duty concession: CESTAT. *  Same GST rate on main input and output can’t by itself bar inverted duty refund: GSTAT. *  Unjust enrichment doesn’t apply to customs refunds from assessments finalised before July 13, 2006: Gujarat High Court. *  CENVAT credit can’t be denied solely because plant And machinery are embedded in earth: Karnataka High Court. *  DFIA exports ineligible for RoDTEP benefits; customs directs repayment with applicable interest. *  Second E-Way bill alone doesn’t prove another supply: GSTAT. *  Bail denied in Rs. 1.19 crore fake GST refund case over risk of accused absconding again: Punjab and Haryana High Court. *  GST registration can be restored after revocation deadline if outstanding dues are paid: Gauhati High Court. *  Multiple GST proceedings over same suppliers: Calcutta High Court directs dept. to share findings for adjudication. *  E-Governance portal services not OIDAR, fixed deposit interest not taxable: CESTAT. *  Rs. 500 Stamp duty required on authority letters for CAs, CMA and GST practitioners in Pune GST division.  *  Rs. 1.10 crore GST refund must be paid in cash after business closure: Allahabad High Court. *  Godown rent attracts 18% GST even when used exclusively for exempt agricultural warehousing: AAR. *  GST portal launches "Multi-State Registration" facility: one master TRN for registration applications across multiple States/UTs. *  RoDTEP scheme extended till 31st December, 2026.  *  Mere disagreement with order can’t override Rs. 20 lakh appeal limit: GSTAT. *  Customs interest can’t be backdated before confiscation liability is determined; nearly 8 year period excluded: Delhi High Court.
Subject News *  GST summons: anticipatory bail maintainable without arrest order, but relief denied in evasion case: Allahabad High Court. *  GST Appeal can’t be decided without hearing taxpayer’s objections to fresh evidence: Allahabad High Court. *  GST ITC can’t be reversed merely because supplier grants discount without reducing tax liability: GSTAT. *  Mere quoting of GST provision is not a valid charge: GSTAT quashes ITC denial. *  Personal hearing mandatory before adverse GST order, even without taxpayer’s request: Rajasthan High Court. *  Parallel bail pleas without full disclosure amount to abuse of process Rs. 43.08 crore GST case sent for fresh hearing: Supreme Court. *  GST refund based on unchallenged advance ruling can’t be recovered using later circular: GSTAT. *  Payment of GST alone doesn’t end interest and penalty liability when tax and interest remain unpaid beyond 30 days of notice: GSTAT. *  GST demand over builders’ 80% procurement rule requires reasoned adjudication: GSTAT. *  Eligible ITC doesn’t automatically entitle taxpayers to compensation cess refund on domestic sales: GSTAT. *  GST confiscation order passed before reply deadline invalid: GSTAT. *  GST interest can’t be retained after tax refund on delayed export receipts: Punjab & Haryana High Court. *  GST appeal can’t be dismissed over pre-deposit shortfall without opportunity To respond: Bombay High Court. *  DGGI SCN can’t be challenged before reply and adjudication:Chhattisgarh High Court. *  GST input tax credit can’t be denied solely due to supplier’s retrospective registration cancellation: GSTAT. *  GST notice must explain fraud allegations; merely repeating section 74 Is not enough:  Himachal Pradesh High Court. *  Audit detection alone can’t justify GST fraud penalty; specific suppression must be proved: GSTAT. *  GST order uploaded only under ‘Additional Notices’ tab without separate intimation set aside: Calcutta High Court. *  Service Tax appeal can’t be rejected for missing pre-deposit proof when payment is already recorded: CESTAT. *  SGST dept. can’t hear appeal against CGST order: Calcutta High Court. *  Mere dispatch of tax order can’t prove service or make appeal time-barred: CESTAT. *  Dealer incentives can’t be taxed merely on ledger entries: CESTAT. *  DGFT orders quashed for failure to supply DRI letter relied upon in SCN: Bombay High Court. *  GST penalty u/s 122(1A) can’t apply to Pre-2021 transactions; unregistered beneficiaries also covered: Delhi High Court. *  Expired E-way bill caused by wrong PIN code can’t justify GST penalty without intent to evade tax: GSTAT. *  Used railway rails can’t be taxed as track material without proof they are fit for reuse: CESTAT. *  Earlier DGGI notice doesn’t bar separate GST demand on different issue: Delhi High Court. *  ITC dispute involves no question of law: GSTAT directs appeal to Vice-President. *  Earlier DGGI notice doesn’t bar separate GST demand On different issue: Delhi High Court. *  No E-way bill required for interstate goods movement in november 2017: GSTAT quashes detention and penalty.  

Comments

Print   |    |  Comment

PJ/Case Laws/2012-13/1216

There is no necessity to challenge bill of Entry when there is no dispute on excess payment of duty.
Case:- ANUPAM PRODUCTS VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF CUS., ICD, TKD, NEW DELHI
 
Citation: - 2012 (282) E.L.T. 451 (Tri- Del.)

Issue: - There is no necessity to challenge bill of Entry when there is no dispute on excess payment of duty.
 
Brief fact: -.The Appellant imported electrolytic Tinplate sheets prima, for use as inputs in their own factory, who is manufacturing tin containers. They filed bill of entry for clearance of the same by discharging basic customs duty @ 10%. However, subsequently, they filed refund claim on 15-4-2005, for Rs. 99,234/- on the ground that BCD chargeable under customs heading 72.10 was @5% whereas they had paid BCD @ 10%.
  
The said refund claim was adjudicated by the Assistant Commissioner. He sought verification from the concerned appraising group, who clarified that the goods attracted @ 5% BCD in terms of Notification No. 21/2002- Cus., dated 1-3-2002, whereas the appellant have actually paid higher BCD. In view of the above, he sanctioned the refund claim of Rs. 85,584/-, after taking note of the quantum of Modvat credit availed by the appellant. The said order of the Assistant Commissioner was appealed against by the Revenue before the Commissioner (Appeals).
 
The appellant authority vide his impugned order allowed the Revenue's appeal on the sole ground that the assessment order was not put to challenge by the importer and as such, in terms of law declared by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Priya Blue Industries v. CCE - 2004 (172) E.L.T. 145 (S.C.), the refund cannot be sanctioned to the appellant. The said order of the Commissioner (Appeals) is challenged before Tribunal.
 
Reasoning of judgment: - The Tribunal found that the rate of basic customs duty, in respect of imported goods was @ 5% whereas the appellant has discharged their duty liability @ 10%. The sole ground on which the Commissioner (Appeals) set aside the Assistant Commissioner's order was that the importer had not filed any appeal against the assessment order and has directly filed the refund claim. He has observed that without setting aside the assessed bill of entry, refund claimed by the appellant, cannot be sanctioned.
 
The law on the issue stands declared by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Priya Blue Industries Ltd. However, applicability of the said declaration of law by the Supreme Court was examined by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Aman Medical Products Ltd. v. CC, Delhi - 2010 (250) E.L.T. 30 (Del.), wherein it was held that the assessment order is required to be challenged by the assessee when there is dispute or ‘lis” between the importer and the Revenue. In the absence of any adversarial assessment order, non filing of appeal against the assessed bill of entry, where there is no 'lis' between the importer and the Revenue at the time of clearance of the goods, will not debar importer of his right to file refund claim. The above finding stand arrived at by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court after examining the provision of Section 27 of Customs Act, 1962. In the present case also there is no 'contest' or 'us' between the appellant and the department at the time of clearance of the goods. The payment of higher rate of duty by the appellant is by way of inadvertent mistake without taking the benefit of notification. Admittedly, the benefit of said notification, was available to the importer. As such, it is clear case of payment of higher duty due to ignorance. Identical facts were available in the case of Aman Medical Products Ltd. decided by the Delhi High Court. As such, Tribunal are of the view that the appellants are entitled to refund of excess duty paid by them. Accordingly, the impugned order is set aside and the order of the original authority is restored.
 
Decision: -Appeal allowed.
 
Comment:-This is very important decision. Normally the department always asks for challenging the assessment when the refund is claimed. But this decision as well as Delhi High Court decision has clearly brought out the position that the assessment order is to be challenged when there is dispute between assessee and the department. When there is no dispute then there is no need to file appeal and refund can be claimed directly. Hence it is very good decision for the importers.
 
 
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