Chartered Accountant
Bookmark and Share
click here to subscribe our newsletter
 
 
Corporate News *  Dept. Can’t Classify Product as Zarda Scented Tobacco After Repeatedly Approving It As Chewing Tobacco: CESTAT *  Mere Uploading Of GST Order On Portal Is Not “Valid” Service: Tripura HC *  CGST Can Proceed Even If SGST Closed Similar Case Earlier: Delhi HC *  SC upholds 28% GST on online gaming with retrospective effect. *  West Bengal Govt cuts E-way Bill Threshold limit to Rs. 50,000 for intra-state goods movement. *  Criminal Prosecution Under Central Excise Act Can’t Continue After CESTAT Sets Aside Duty Demand on Merits: Punjab & Haryana High Court. *  Madras High Court Quashes GST Assessment Orders for Denial of Personal Hearing; Remands Matter Subject to 10% Deposit *  Ex Parte GST Order: Madras High Court Directs Immediate Removal of Bank/ITC Attachment Upon 25% Deposit *  J.K. Cement Receives GST Demand Order of Rs 8,02,113/- from Ahmedabad Tax Authority *  Delhi Police EOW Busts Alleged Rs. 128 Crore GST Fake Invoice Network. *  REPLY TO SCN CAN’T BE TREATED AS “EMPTY FORMALITY”: ORISSA HIGH COURT QUASHES GST DEMAND OF RS. 57.30 LAKH *  Challenge to CGST Provisions restricting ITC to Bonafide Purchasers : Allahabad HC issues notice *  CBIC Notifies Revised Customs Tariff Values for Edible Oils, Gold, Silver, Brass Scrap and Areca Nuts *  Delhi HC Orders Removal of GST Attachment After Statutory 1 Year Period Expired *  GSTAT Extends Relaxed Appeal Filing Guidelines till December 31, 2026 *  AO fails to Provide Import - Export Data from DGFT to Taxpayer for Reconciliation *  Gold, Silver Imports To Get Costlier As Govt Raises Customs Duty To 10%  *  GSTAT Enables Pre-Payment Access to Document Upload and Checklist for GST Appeal Filing *  GST Portal Restrictions Can’t Override Statute: Gujarat HC Allows Cross-State Transfer Of CGST ITC After Amalgamation *  Centre Revises HS Codes for Large Diameter Steel Pipes Used in Oil & Gas Pipelines *  Customs Duty Liability Arises On Warehouse Clearance Date: Supreme Court *  Government lifts export ban on de-oiled rice bran *  CESTAT Grants 12% Interest on Pre-Deposit for Investigation from Date of Deposit till Refund and Denies Interest on Interest. *  Government Overhauls GST Classification Framework for Non-Alcoholic Beverages; Fruit Juice Drinks, Milk-Based Beverages and Caffeinated Drinks to Attract Revised 5% and 40% GST Rates from May 1, 2026 *  India’s gross GST collections hit a record Rs 2.42 lakh crore in April, up 8.7% *  Customs clearance stalled, revenue hit over MRP dispute *  Shipping Corporation explores Middle East routes as Hormuz tensions disrupt cargo movement *  India, Kenya signs MoU for exchange of pre-arrival customs information *  No demand of Taxes under Reverse Charge if Tax Already Discharged by Service Provider under forward charge *  The India-New Zealand Free Trade Agreement, signed "once-in-a-generation" deal that eliminates tariffs on 100% of Indian exports to New Zealand
Subject News *  Consignment Sales Can’t Be Reclassified as Inter-State Sales Based on Pre-Agreement Evidence: CESTAT *  Exporter Can’t Be Denied Advance Authorization Benefit Due To ICEGATE Technical Glitch: Delhi High Court *  No GST Demand For Mere Wrong Set-Off Of IGST Credit Under CGST And SGST Heads: Kerala HC. *  Cenvat Credit Can’t Be Denied on Input Services Having Nexus With Manufacturing Activities: CESTAT *  Pending Proceedings Can’t Survive Without Saving Clause: Calcutta High Court Quashes GST Demand of Rs. 6.28 Crore After Omission of Rule 96(10) *  Madras HC Quashes GST Demands on TASMAC (Tamil Nadu State Marketing Corporation) Bar Licence Fee *  GST Proceedings Cannot Survive Omitted Rule Without Saving Clause: Calcutta HC *  Provisional Release Can’t Be Denied Solely On Dept. Suspicion Of Misclassification And Undervaluation Of Imported Goods: CESTAT *  Businesses Should Not Be Kept Outside GST Regime Without Due Process: Gauhati High Court *  Punjab & Haryana HC Directs Reconsideration of Contractors’ Claim for Additional GST Payment After Tax Rate Hike From 12% to 18% *  S. 108 Statements Can’t Be Sole Basis Without Following Section 138B Procedure: CESTAT *  Bombay High Court Frames Key Questions on Mandatory Distribution of ITC U/s 20 CGST Act *  Filing of Annexure-B for Refund Applications involving Accumulated ITC using the offline utility in GST portal: GSTN *  No Service Tax on Parent Company’s Un-Invoiced Cost Allocations Without Actual Service or Consideration: CESTAT  *  Calcutta High Court Upholds GST Classification of Polypropylene Leno Bags as Plastic Products *  DRC-01 Summary Can’t Replace Mandatory SCN: Gauhati High Court *  GSTAT Issues Major Bench Allocation Framework; All Appeals to First Go Before Division Bench *  ITC Blocking Without Reasoned Order Violates Rule 86A; Punjab & Haryana HC Directs Release of Credit *  Allahabad HC Refuses Bail to CGST Superintendent In Rs. 70 Lakh Bribery Case *  S.130 Can’t Be Invoked Without Prior Tax Determination U/s 73/74: Allahabad High Court Quashes GST Confiscation Proceedings *  SC grants Bail to Rs 54cr GST case  *  Karnataka HC Sets Aside Duplicate GST Orders, Orders Fresh Hearing on GSTIN Cancellation *  DRC-01 Summary Can’t Replace Mandatory SCN: Gauhati High Court *  Transfer Of Unutilized ITC After Amalgamation - Supreme Court Issues Notice *  PUNJAB & HARYANA HC QUASHES GST CANCELLATION NOTICE FOR FAILURE TO PROVIDE CBIC ENQUIRY REPORT *  LICENSE FEE, TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE CHARGES NOT INCLUDIBLE IN CUSTOMS VALUE UNLESS THEY ARE A CONDITION OF SALE: CESTAT *  DELHI HC ORDERS REMOVAL OF GST ATTACHMENT AFTER STATUTORY 1 YEAR PERIOD EXPIRED *  CUSTOMS BROKER CAN’T BE FAULTED JUST BECAUSE EXPORTER’S GST REGISTRATION WAS PREVIOUSLY CANCELLED: CESTAT   *  Supreme Court Dismisses Review Plea Against Delhi HC Ruling Holding Real Operator Behind Fake GST Firms Liable As ‘Taxable Person  *  GST Appeal Can’t Be Rejected Merely Because DRC-07 Was Not Uploaded On Portal: Bombay High Court  

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