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/2012-13/1546

Whether conversion of shipping bill from duty drawback scheme to advance licence scheme is allowable?

Case:-  CHERMA'S EXQUISITE LTD. Versus COMMR. OF CUS. (EXPORTS), CHENNAI

Citation:-2013 (288) E.L.T. 545 (Tri. - Chennai)

Brief Facts:-The appellants have filed this appeal against the impugned order wherein conversion of their shipping bill from duty drawback scheme to advance licence scheme is denied. The facts of the case are that the appellants filed a shipping bill on 2-7-2009 for export of readymade garments under advance licence cum duty drawback scheme. Thereafter, they moved an application for conversion of the part of the consignment under drawback scheme to advance licence scheme on 15-9-2009. As the appellants were given the benefit of drawback scheme before their filing of the request on 15-9-2009 and considering the fact that the appel­lants are not entitled for benefit of conversion as per Board's Circular No. 4/2004-Cus., dated 16-1-2004, their request for conversion from duty drawback scheme to advance licence scheme was denied. Against the said order, the appellant is in appeal before the Tribunal.

Appellant Contentions:-The Appellant submits that although the duty drawback scheme has been sanctioned but the appellants are ready to pay back the duty drawback claimed along with interest till the date when the conversion is allowed. Further, he sub­mits that they are entitled for conversion of shipping bill from drawback scheme to advance licence scheme as per Board's Circular No. 4/2004-Cus., dated 16-1- 2004 as their claim for conversion to advance licence scheme was not denied by the DGFT, Department of Commerce or the Customs due to any dispute. Fur­ther, he submitted that as part of the consignment was under advance licence scheme and a part of the consignment was under duty drawback scheme and the consignment was examined at the time of export of the goods, and all the docu­ments were available at the time of clearance of goods as required by Section 149 of the Customs Act, 1962, therefore, their claim for conversion from duty draw­back scheme to advance licence scheme be granted.

 

Respondent Contentions:- The Respondent submits that as the appellants have already got duty drawback sanctioned by the adjudicating authority, therefore, they cannot take double benefit at this stage. Further, he submitted that the adjudicating authority has considered their claim from all the angles and thereafter has come to the decision that their re­quest for conversion from duty drawback scheme to advance licence scheme cannot be accepted on the premise that for export under advance licence scheme requires rigorous examination of goods as compared to the duty drawback scheme and the quantities mentioned in the advance licence has already been exported by the appellants. Therefore, they cannot export more quantity against the said licence.

 

Reasoning of Judgment:-We have considered the submission from both the parties and perused the record, we observed that the ap­pellant filed a Shipping Bill No. 3419019 on 2-7-2009 for export of readymade garments. Part of the consignment was under advance licence scheme and part of the consignment was under drawback scheme. The request for conversion was made on 15-9-2009 i.e. within 2.5 months for conversion of drawback scheme to advance licence No. 0910037756. The denial was made on the following grounds :-

 

·         The drawback has already been sanctioned.
·         They are not covered by Board's Circular No. 4/2004-Cus., dated 16-1-2004 and
·         Goods require rigorous examination at the time of export under ad­vance licence scheme.

 

With regard to first ground for denial, the appellants are ready to pay drawback availed by them along with interest. Therefore, the claim cannot be denied on this ground. The denial on the ground that the Board's Circular No. 4/2004-Cus., dated 16-1-2004 is not sustainable as the conversion under advance licence scheme has not been denied by the DGFT or Ministry of Commerce or Customs due to any dispute. Therefore, the conversion from drawback scheme to advance licence scheme is available to the appellants. Further, part of the con­signment was under advance licence scheme and part of the consignment was under the drawback scheme and at the time of export, the consignment was ex­amined by the Customs authorities as per advance licence scheme. Therefore conversion can be allowed and cannot be denied on this premise only. The contention of learned SDR that the appellants have already fulfilled the export obli­gation against licence No. 0910037756, therefore, they are not entitled to take benefit of the said licence is not sustainable as the Revenue is getting the amount paid to the appellants under drawback scheme along with interest and it is im­material whether they will get benefit under the advance licence scheme or not. Therefore, the impugned order is set aside and appeal is allowed with consequential relief. Appellants shall approach within 15 days of communication of this order before the authorities concerned with a proof of payment of duty drawback along with interest for conversion of their shipping bill from drawback scheme to advance licence scheme and thereafter within 15 days, the adjudicat­ing authority shall allow conversion of shipping bill from duty drawback scheme to advance licence scheme as per Section 149 of the Customs Act, 1962.

 

In the above circumstances appeal is allowed.

Decision:- The appeal is allowed.

Comment:-The essence of this case is that the conversion of shipping bill from drawback scheme to the advance authorisation scheme cannot be denied when the drawback along with interest is agreed to be returned by the assessee and there is no objection by the DGFT and the export consignment was also examined by the Customs authorities at the time of export.

 
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