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/2012-13/1164

Whether an assessee is liable to pay 100% of duty in case of provisional removal of goods or is liable to pay 20% as the provisional duty as per regulation 2 of the customs (provisional duty assessment) Regulations, 1963.
CASE:  BHAIYA FIBERS LTD. V/S ADDL. DIR. GENERAL OF REVENUE INTELLIGENCE
CITATION:  2012 (281) E.L.T 396 (DELHI)
ISSUE:-   Whether an assessee is liable to pay 100% of duty in case of provisional removal of goods or is liable to pay 20% as the provisional duty as per regulation 2 of the customs (provisional duty assessment) Regulations, 1963.
BRIEF FACTS: - The petitioner had imported PVC laminated flexible films, gummed vinyl, printable vinyl, PVC foam board from some parties in china. The goods were imported between January and September, 2007 through the ports at Kolkata, Mumbai and Tuticorin. In all, the petitioner had filled 16 bills of entry in respect of the imported goods. There is no dispute that in respect of 4 bills of entry imported through Kolkata port, the goods have been cleared on a provisional assessment. The Petitioner has furnished bank guarantees and has cleared those goods. Insofar as the balance 12 bills of entries are concerned, one of them relates to Tuticorin, one to Kolkata and the remaining 10 to Mumbai. The Petitioner seeks the release of the goods covered by these bills of entry on a provisional assessment basis and is of view that they are liable to pay duty equal to 20% as the provisional duty as per regulation 2 of the customs (provisional duty assessment) Regulations, 1963, since the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (DRI) has some objection with regard to valuation of these goods. The revenue or the respondent is of view that the petitioner should pay 100% of duty even in case of provisional removal of goods from the factory.  
APPELLANTS CONTENTION:- Learned counsel for the Petitioner has drawn our attention to the Customs (Provisional Duty Assessment) Regulations, 1963. Regulation 2 thereof reads as follows: - "REGULATION 2. Conditions for allowing provisional assessment:-
 Where the proper officer on account of any of the grounds specified in sub-section (I) of Section 18 of the Customs Act, 1962 (52 of 1962), is not able to make a final assessment of the duty on the imported goods or the export goods, as the case may be, he shall make an estimate of the duty that is most likely to be levied hereinafter referred to as the provisional duty. If the importer or the exporter, as the case may be, executes a bond in an amount equal to the difference between the duty that may be finally assessed and the provisional duty and deposits with the proper officer such sum not exceeding twenty per cent of the provisional duty, as the proper officer may direct, the proper officer may assess the duty on the goods provisionally at an amount equal to the provisional duty."  A reading of the aforesaid Regulation shows that where there is a dispute with regard to the valuation of imported goods, the proper officer under the Customs Act, 1962 may release those goods on an importer/exporter executing a proper bond and depositing with the proper officer an amount not exceeding 20% of the difference in duty as claimed by the importer/exporter and the provisional duty as assessed by the proper officer.
RESPONDENTS CONTENTION:-  It is contended by learned Central Government Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of the Respondent that the goods have been grossly undervalued by die Petitioner and during investigation it has transpired that the goods imported by the Petitioner, which are lying seized under superdarinama ought to be valued at US$ 1640/PMT whereas the Petitioner has declared their value between US$ 870/PMT to US$ 1000/PMT. They demanded that petitioner should deposit 100% of the duty even in case of provisional removal of goods.
REASONING OF JUDGEMENT: - It was noticed by central government standing council that there was difference between provisional release of goods and provisional assessment of goods but both are same in substance because provisional removal of goods can not be done without provisional assessment of goods. Thus as per regulation 2 of the customs (provisional duty assessment) Regulations, 1963 petitioner was liable to deposit 20% of the duty.
DECISION:- Respondent was directed to provisionally clear the goods forming the subject matter of 12 bills of entry have been mentioned in the petition upon the petitioner to  depositing an amount equal to 20% of the difference in the provisional duty as sought to be assessed by the Respondent and on the basis of the value prima facie determined by the respondent, that is US$ 1640/PMT and the value declared by the petitioner, that is between US$ 870/PMT AND US$ 1000/PMT and the petitioner was also liable to execute a bond to pay the balance of the differential duty as and when it is finally assessed. Writ petition disposed off.
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