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/2014-15/2557

Whether credit reversal of 6% of exempted goods required when option given by Finance Act, 2010 exercised?

Case:- COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, CHENNAI-II VERSUS ICMC CORPORATION LTD.

Citation:-2015(315) E.L.T. 388 (MAD.)

Brief Facts:-The Revenue has preferred this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal as against the Final Order No. 1445 of 2007, dated 4-12-2007 passed by the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, South Zonal Bench, Chennai in allowing the assessee’s appeal and the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is admitted on the following questions of law:
“Whether on facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is right in holding that the respondent is entitled to Cenvat credit on the inputs used exclusively in the manufacture of goods, which are exempted and which are cleared without payment of duty?”
Whether the CESTAT is justified in holding that the assessee is entitled to take Cenvat credit on all inputs including inputs exclusively used in the manufacture of exempted final products contrary to the provisions of Rule 6(1) of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004?
Whether on facts and in the circumstances of the case, the CESTAT is right in applying the ratio of judgment in the case of Hetero Labs Ltd. v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Hyderabad - 2005 (192)E.L.T. 716 (Tri.-Bangalore) where the facts involved are entirely distinct and different from the facts of the instant case and when the said decision has not reached finality?
Following the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Chandrapur Magnet Wires (P) Ltd. v. Collector of Central Excise, Nagpur reported in 1996 (81) E.L.T. 3 (S.C.), wherein the Apex Court held that when the credit attributable to the inputs in exempted product is reversed by the assessee, the demand of 8% - 10% on the sale price was not justified under Rule 6 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004, the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal allowed the appeal filed by the assessee holding that when the credit was reversed by the assessee, it was as if they had not taken any credit at all.
Aggrieved by this, the Revenue is on appeal before this Court.

Appellant Contentions:-Appellant submitted that the assessee is entitled to take Cenvat credit on all inputs including inputs exclusively used in the manufacture of exempted final products contrary to the provisions of Rule 6(1) of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. Hence, it is not sustainable in law.

Reasoning of Judgment:-  High Court find from a reading of the amendment made to Rule 6 under Section 73 of the Finance Act, 2010 that the procedure of the Cenvat Credit Rules under Rule 6 was brought in with retrospective effect from September, 2004 by insertion under Rule 6(6), which reads as under:

S. No. Provisions of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 to be amended Amendment Period of effect of amendment
1 2 3 4
  Rule 6 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 as published vide Notification Number G.S.R. 600 (E), dated the 10th September, 2004 [23/2004-CENTRAL EXCISE (N.T.), dated the 10th September, 2004]. In the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004, in Rule 6, after sub-rule (6), the following sub-rule shall be inserted, namely :
“(7) Where a dispute relating to adjustment of credit on inputs or input services used in or in relation to exempted final products relating to the period beginning on the 10th day of September, 2004 and ending with the 31st day of March, 2008 (both days inclusive) is pending on the date on which the Finance Bill, 2010 receives the assent of the President, then, notwithstanding anything contained in sub-rules (1) and (2), and clauses (a) and (b) of sub-rule (3), a manufacturer availing Cenvat credit in respect of any inputs or input services and manufacturing final products which are chargeable to duty and also other final products which are exempted goods, may pay an amount equivalent to Cenvat credit attributable to the inputs or input services used in, or in relation to the manufacture of, exempted goods before or after the clearance of such goods :
Provided that the manufacturer shall pay interest at the rate of twenty-four per cent, per annum from the due date till the date of payment of the said amount.
Explanation : For the purpose of this sub-rule, “due date” means the 5th day of the month following the month in which goods have been cleared from the factory.
10th day of September, 2004 to the 31st day of March, 2008 (both days inclusive).
 

 
As per Section 73 sub-section (2) of the Finance Act, 2010 the assessee has to make an application to the Commissioner of Central Excise along with documentary evidence and a Certificate from the Chartered Accountant or a Cost Accountant, certifying the amount of input credit attributable to the inputs used in or in relation to the manufacture of exempted goods within a period of six months from the date on which the Finance Bill, 2010 received the assent of the President.
Considering the fact that the assessee had reversed the credit even prior to the amendment and the order of the Tribunal is in fact no different from what is contemplated under the Finance Act, 2010, we do not find anything survives further for this Court to consider the merits of the case pleaded by the Revenue.
Accordingly, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal fails and the same is dismissed. No costs.

Decision:-Appeal dismissed.  

Comment:-The gist of this case is that assessee is not liable to pay amount under rule 6(3) if credit taken on inputs which are used in exclusively for manufacture of exempted goods had been already reversed by them by availing the benefit of option given by the Finance Act, 2010. In view of retrospective amendment in Rule 6, Finance Act, 2010 gave an option to the assessee to reverse the cenvat credit attributable to inputs used in manufacture of exempted goods or provision of exempted service and intimate the availment of option to the revenue authorities. The consequence of exercising the option was that the assessee would not be required to make payment of 6% of the value of exempted goods/services.

Prepared by: Hushen Ganodwala

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