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 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