Chartered Accountant
Bookmark and Share
click here to subscribe our newsletter
 
 
Corporate News *  The GSTN has issued an Advisory dated 21.04.2026 about the introduction of an Offline Tool for the Invoice Management System (IMS)  *  CBIC extends due dates for filing of FORM GSTR 3B  for the month of April 2026 *  Interest cannot be imposed in adjudication order, if not demanded/quantified in show cause notice : Allahabad HC *  Wheelchairs with toileting facility eligible for exemption: CESTAT affirms customs duty exemption to importer *  Industries urge GST council to allow inverted duty refunds on input services *  Tamil Nadu GST dept introduced virtual hearing facility for GST appeals under under section 107 of the TNGST act: detailed guidelines  *  CIC urges authorities to implement GST evasion complaint tracking system *  Even if the assessee opts "NO" for personal hearing in form DRC-06 ,The mandatory requirement under section 75(4) to grant opportunity of hearing cannot be waived:Gujarat High Court  *  Glufosinate imports curbs imposed by govt *  Government extends Re-import period for exported cut & polished diamonds *  CIC flags lack of tracking system for tax evasion complaints,urges GST authorities to improve transparency *  No Custodial Interrogation needed in GST fraud case based on documentary evidence already in Department's Possession : Chattisgarh HC *  Orders under section cannot be sustained if passed without considering the taxpayer's objections and without granting a personal hearing:Gujarat High Court *  Mere cancellation of supplier's registration cannot,by itself,justify denial of ITC or cancellation of the recipient's registration:Bombay High Court *  High Court sets aside GST notice citing factual errors and natural justice violations *  Provisional Bank Attachment under Section. 110 of Customs Act Unsustainable Beyond Statutory period without Extension order: Bombay HC orders to defreeze accounts *  Post Clearance MRP Alteration by Distributor Does not attract Differential Customs Duty: CESTAT *  DGFT Expands scope of 'Screws' classification under RoDTEP Scheme  *  E-way bills surze to all time high of 140.6 million in March *  GST Exemption Allowed on Pure Labour Services for Standalone Houses: AAR  *  GST Payable Only on Margin in Second-Hand Car Sales, Subject to Strict Conditions and No ITC Claim: AAR *  DGFT rolls out procedure for allocation of calcined coke *  GST portal update : Pre-deposit amount now editable in Appeals *  J&K HC declared TMT scrap a 'Specified Good' eligibile for GST refunds under Support Scheme  *  Pigmy agents are employees of banks; no GST can be levied on commission  paid to them : Karnataka HC *  DGFT Revises HS Code Description for Screws Under RoDTEP *  GST Registration Cancellation Invalid Without Proper Service of Notice: Allahabad High Court. *  Bengaluru CGST | GST Backlog Appeals Deadline Fixed at June 30, 2026 *  No Time Bar on Refund of Service Tax for Services Not Rendered: CESTAT  Remands Indiabulls Case for Unjust Enrichment Check. *  Supreme Court Holds Renewable Energy Incentive Must Benefit Generators, Not Be Adjusted in Tariff
Subject News *   Delhi HC Quashes Order, Says Reminder Cannot Validate Improperly Served GST SCN *  KARNATAKA HIGH COURT REMANDS GST SHORTFALL MATTER DUE TO ABSENCE OF PERSONAL HEARING   *  CESTAT cancels confiscation and penalties on imported computer cabinet cases: Custom duty restricted to 111 surplus units *  Deposit of tax during search or investigation cannot be treated as 'Voluntary Payment' : Bombay High Court *  Section 76 of the CGST cannot be invoked where the tax has already been duly deposited, even if through another registration of the same entity: Madras High Court *  Sec 74 allows use of material regardless of source; illegality or flaws in section 67 search do not vitiate valid adjudication: HC *  Inter-State transfer of ITC on Amalgamation permissible as given under section 18(3) read with rule 41 of the CGST rules, 2017: Gujarat High Court *  HC: No GST on commisson paid to Pigmy Agents *  IGST refund denial on illegible bill of lading invalid absent chance to furnish docs; merit reconsideration in appeals directed: HC *  ITC is not admissible on GST paid on leasehold rights of land used fpr setting up an air seperation plant: AAAR,Tamil Nadu *  GST: No penalty under Section 74 after voluntary ITC reversal due to non-existent supplier : High Court *  TN AAAR denies GST ITC on Land Lease under Sec. 17(5)(d) for setting up plant and machinery *  GST proceedings quashed as notices sent to old address, despite updated address in registration *  Importer Can’t Be Penalised for Alleged IGCR Procedural Lapses Without Evidence of Departmental Error: CESTAT *  Structured Healthcare Training Not ‘Charitable Activity’, 18% GST Payable: AAR  *  CESTAT As The Appellate Authority For Central Sales Tax Disputes: A Paradigm Shift Under Finance Act, 2023 *   Rs. 25K Cost Imposed On SGST Joint Commissioner for Attaching Bank  Accounts Without Forming Mandatory “Opinion”: Bombay HC *   Ex-Parte GST Order Without Hearing Violates Natural Justice: Karnataka  High Court Quashes Adjudication and Bank Attachment.  *   Retrospective GST Cancellation Can’t Invalidate Genuine Transactions:  Jaipur Commissioner (Appeals) Quashes Rs. 95,670 ITC Demand. *   GST Pre-Deposit Non-Compliance: Allahabad High Court Allows Appeal  Subject to Rs. 30 Lakh Balance Deposit, Recognises Offline Filing. *  Documentary Nature of Evidence: Allahabad High Court Grants Bail in Rs. 32.66 Crore Fake ITC Fraud Case *  Supreme Court Flags Systemic Bias in Army’s Permanent Commission Process for Women Officers *  Re-Determination of Land Compensation Can Be Based on Appellate Court Awards, Clarifies Scope of S. 28-A: Supreme Court. *  Supreme Court Imposes Rs. 5 Lakh Costs On Rent Authority Officer For Acting Beyond Jurisdiction. *  DGGI Meerut | Court Denies Bail to Accused in Claiming Fake ITC And Export Refunds *  Denial of GST Rate Revision Benefit to Contractor Violates Article 14: Rajasthan HC *  GST Registration Cancellation for Non-Filing of Returns: Gauhati High Court Directs Restoration on Compliance. *   Supreme Court Quashes FEMA Adjudication Orders, Revives Proceedings at  Show Cause Stage. *   Higher Rank, Harsher Punishment Justified: Supreme Court Restores Dismissal  of Bank Manager in Misappropriation Case. *   Limitation for Export Refund to Be Counted from Foreign Exchange Realisation,  Not From Export Invoices Issuance: CESTAT  

Comments

Print   |    |  Comment

PJ/Case law/2014-15/2269

Whether assessee is entitled to utilize credit for payment of duty during the default period ?

Case;- M/s SRI SIVASAKTHI AUTO ANCILLARIES PVT LTD Vs COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, CHENNAI-IV
 
Citation:- 2014-TIOL-982-CESTAT-MAD

 
Brief facts:- The applicant was a Central Excise assessee, who defaulted in payment of their Central Excise dues, as declared by them for the month of July, 2008. However, the amount defaulted was paid in Sept.'08 and the interest on defaulted amount was paid in Mar.09' only. Thus, as per the provisions of Rule 8(3A) of the central Excise Rules, 2002 the appellant was in default from Aug.'08 to Mar.'09. As per the said Rule, the assessee was not entitled to utilize Cenvat credit for payment of Excise duty during the period under default. Never the less, the applicant continued to utilize Cenvat credit for payment of duties. Therefore, Revenue issued a Show Cause Notice for recovering the duty not paid in cash, but paid through Cenvat credit for the reason such payment through Cenvat credit could not be considered to be a legal discharge of duty payable. After adjudication an amount of Rs.14,18,184/- was confirmed against the applicant along with interest and penalty. Hence, the present appeal is filed before the Tribunal.
 
Appellant’s contentions:- Arguing for the applicant, the learned Counsel for the applicant submitted that they had made delayed payment as their company was a loss making one. Besides, the delayed payments were made good by paying the defaulted amount along with interest, which was good enough. Once they came out of the defaulted period, such payment became proper, according to him. Hence, at worst there can be interest liability on account of wrong utilization of Cenvat credit. In this regard, he relied on the following decisions:-
(i) Solar Chemferts Pvt. Ltd Vs Commissioner of Central Excise, Thane-I reported in 2012 (276) E.L.T. 273 (Tri-Mumbai) =
2011-TIOL-1968-CESTAT-MUM
(ii)F.S. Engineers Vs Commissioner of Central Excise, Ahmadabad-II reported in 2013(293) E.L.T.61 (Tri-Ahmd) = 2013-TIOL-
880-CESTAT-AHM     
(iii) Baba Viswakarma Engg. Co. (P) LTD Vs CCE-2012 (278) E.L.T. 68 (Tri. - Del) = 2011-TIOL-2010-CESTAT-DEL
Therefore, he submitted that the appeal may be admitted without any pre-deposit.
 
Respondent’s contentions:- Opposing the prayer the learned Authorised Representative for the Revenue submitted that statue prescribes that duty had to be paid in cash when an assessee was in default as Per Rule 8(3A). As such, the duty demand had to be paid in cash only and if the same was paid in Cenvat credit, it could not be considered as payment of duty. He said that these were clandestine clearance without payment of duty. In this, regard he relied on several decisions.
 
Reasoning of judgment:- Considered arguments on both sides. The Bench did not agree with the argument that the clearances made by the applicant were clandestine removals because the clearances were reported in the returns filed by application. The applicant was liable to pay duty in cash, when they were in default. Any payment made through Cenvat credit can be taken as proper discharge only when no bar as per Rule 8(3A) of Central Excise Rules, 2002 was operating. If payment was made through credit after they came out of defaulting period it would be acceptable as proper discharge. The payment prior to coming out of default could not be refused for the reason that it was paid earlier but for the fact that interest had to be paid. Therefore, we order the applicant to calculate interest on clearances during the default period till March 2009 to be calculated for each clearance from the date of clearance to the end of defaulting period for the payment made through Cenvat and deposit such amount as pre-deposit for admission of the appeal within a period of six weeks.
Subject to such deposit there shall be stay on collection of balance dues arising from the impugned order during the pendency of the appeal.
 
Decision:- Pre deposit ordered.
 
Comment:- The analogy drawn from the case is that if the payment of excise duty is made through credit after assessee comes out of defaulting period it is acceptable as proper discharge. The payment through CENVAT credit prior to coming out of default cannot be accepted as proper discharge of duty liability and so interest had to be paid on each clearance from the date of clearance to the end of defaulting period for the payment made through Cenvat.

Prepared by: Ranu Dhoot

Comments

Post a Comment



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