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/2012-13/1164

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