Chartered Accountant
Bookmark and Share
click here to subscribe our newsletter
 
 
Corporate News *  Missing seized records must be considered while testing ITC claim; duplicate GST demands ordered corrected: Delhi High Court. *  GST appeal can’t be rejected without addressing taxpayer’s grounds: Allahabad High Court. *  Surplus IGST credit can offset CGST, SGST shortfall: GSTAT. *  GST refund can’t be denied when cancelled airfares are returned with tax: GSTAT. *  3 Hearing notices issued within 2 minutes: Gujarat High Court flags portal flaw, seeks report. *  GSTR-9, GSTR-9C filing for FY 2025-26 enabled; pending GSTR-1 and GSTR-3B must be filed first. *  Dupattas are exempt fabrics, can’t be taxed as fibres at 4%: Madras High Court. *  Full transitional credit allowed on capital goods received after GST rollout: GSTAT denies Rs. 6.99 lakh export duty credit. *  GST return mismatch alone can’t justify fraud proceedings: GSTAT orders fresh adjudication under section 73. *  Supplier found non-existent later can’t alone justify input tax credit denial: GSTAT. *  GST interest stops once tax reaches government account, can’t run until return filing: GSTAT. *  Cancelled flat booking- GST refund can’t be denied without excluding COVID period from limitation: GSTAT. *  India notifies rules of origin for India–New Zealand FTA. *  Incomplete E-bike kits classifiable as complete vehicles, but not eligible for CKD duty concession: CESTAT. *  Same GST rate on main input and output can’t by itself bar inverted duty refund: GSTAT. *  Unjust enrichment doesn’t apply to customs refunds from assessments finalised before July 13, 2006: Gujarat High Court. *  CENVAT credit can’t be denied solely because plant And machinery are embedded in earth: Karnataka High Court. *  DFIA exports ineligible for RoDTEP benefits; customs directs repayment with applicable interest. *  Second E-Way bill alone doesn’t prove another supply: GSTAT. *  Bail denied in Rs. 1.19 crore fake GST refund case over risk of accused absconding again: Punjab and Haryana High Court. *  GST registration can be restored after revocation deadline if outstanding dues are paid: Gauhati High Court. *  Multiple GST proceedings over same suppliers: Calcutta High Court directs dept. to share findings for adjudication. *  E-Governance portal services not OIDAR, fixed deposit interest not taxable: CESTAT. *  Rs. 500 Stamp duty required on authority letters for CAs, CMA and GST practitioners in Pune GST division.  *  Rs. 1.10 crore GST refund must be paid in cash after business closure: Allahabad High Court. *  Godown rent attracts 18% GST even when used exclusively for exempt agricultural warehousing: AAR. *  GST portal launches "Multi-State Registration" facility: one master TRN for registration applications across multiple States/UTs. *  RoDTEP scheme extended till 31st December, 2026.  *  Mere disagreement with order can’t override Rs. 20 lakh appeal limit: GSTAT. *  Customs interest can’t be backdated before confiscation liability is determined; nearly 8 year period excluded: Delhi High Court.
Subject News *  GST summons: anticipatory bail maintainable without arrest order, but relief denied in evasion case: Allahabad High Court. *  GST Appeal can’t be decided without hearing taxpayer’s objections to fresh evidence: Allahabad High Court. *  GST ITC can’t be reversed merely because supplier grants discount without reducing tax liability: GSTAT. *  Mere quoting of GST provision is not a valid charge: GSTAT quashes ITC denial. *  Personal hearing mandatory before adverse GST order, even without taxpayer’s request: Rajasthan High Court. *  Parallel bail pleas without full disclosure amount to abuse of process Rs. 43.08 crore GST case sent for fresh hearing: Supreme Court. *  GST refund based on unchallenged advance ruling can’t be recovered using later circular: GSTAT. *  Payment of GST alone doesn’t end interest and penalty liability when tax and interest remain unpaid beyond 30 days of notice: GSTAT. *  GST demand over builders’ 80% procurement rule requires reasoned adjudication: GSTAT. *  Eligible ITC doesn’t automatically entitle taxpayers to compensation cess refund on domestic sales: GSTAT. *  GST confiscation order passed before reply deadline invalid: GSTAT. *  GST interest can’t be retained after tax refund on delayed export receipts: Punjab & Haryana High Court. *  GST appeal can’t be dismissed over pre-deposit shortfall without opportunity To respond: Bombay High Court. *  DGGI SCN can’t be challenged before reply and adjudication:Chhattisgarh High Court. *  GST input tax credit can’t be denied solely due to supplier’s retrospective registration cancellation: GSTAT. *  GST notice must explain fraud allegations; merely repeating section 74 Is not enough:  Himachal Pradesh High Court. *  Audit detection alone can’t justify GST fraud penalty; specific suppression must be proved: GSTAT. *  GST order uploaded only under ‘Additional Notices’ tab without separate intimation set aside: Calcutta High Court. *  Service Tax appeal can’t be rejected for missing pre-deposit proof when payment is already recorded: CESTAT. *  SGST dept. can’t hear appeal against CGST order: Calcutta High Court. *  Mere dispatch of tax order can’t prove service or make appeal time-barred: CESTAT. *  Dealer incentives can’t be taxed merely on ledger entries: CESTAT. *  DGFT orders quashed for failure to supply DRI letter relied upon in SCN: Bombay High Court. *  GST penalty u/s 122(1A) can’t apply to Pre-2021 transactions; unregistered beneficiaries also covered: Delhi High Court. *  Expired E-way bill caused by wrong PIN code can’t justify GST penalty without intent to evade tax: GSTAT. *  Used railway rails can’t be taxed as track material without proof they are fit for reuse: CESTAT. *  Earlier DGGI notice doesn’t bar separate GST demand on different issue: Delhi High Court. *  ITC dispute involves no question of law: GSTAT directs appeal to Vice-President. *  Earlier DGGI notice doesn’t bar separate GST demand On different issue: Delhi High Court. *  No E-way bill required for interstate goods movement in november 2017: GSTAT quashes detention and penalty.  

Comments

Print   |    |  Comment

PJ/CASE LAW/2015-16/2562

Whether deemed exports considered for computing DTA sale entitlement?

Case:-  NANDANA SYNTHETICS PVT. LTD. VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF C. EX. & S.T., DAMAN

Citation:-2015(315) E.L.T. 454 (Tri.-Ahmd.)

Brief Facts:-This appeal is directed against O-I-A No. KS/350/DAMAN/2006, dated 6-10-2006.

The brief facts that arise for consideration are the appellant herein is engaged in manufacturing of polyester texturized yarn and polyester grey knitted fabrics is a 100% EOU. During the period in question (August 2003 to September 2003), appellant cleared the products manufactured by him out of indigenous raw material discharging 50% of the amount of duty payable. The lower authorities were of the view that appellant could not have done so, as per provisions of paragraph 6.8 of the EXIM Policy, issued a show cause notice which was adjudicated and recovery of differential duty was confirmed alongwith interest and penalties. Appellants appeal before the first appellate authority was also rejected. Hence, the present appeal.

Appellant Contentions:-Ld. Counsel at the outset draws our attention to the provisions of paragraph 6.8 of the EXIM Policy 2002-2007. It is his submission that during the relevant period, appellant had exported the goods and also cleared the goods to various 100% EOU’s. It is his submission that the lower authorities are holding a view that the benefit of paragraph 6.8(b) of the EXIM Policy will be applicable only to ‘physical exports’. He would submit that the issue is no more res integra inasmuch as, in the case of Gandhi Fibers - 2011 (268) E.L.T. 354 (Guj.), this Bench vide Final Order No. A/1187/WZB/AHD/2009 held in the favour of the assessee relying upon judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Virlon Textile Mills Ltd. - 2007 (211) E.L.T. 353 (S.C.). It is his submission that the said judgment of the Tribunal in the case of Gandhi Fibers has been upheld by the Hon’ble High Court of Gujarat as reported at 2011 (268) E.L.T. 354 (Guj.) and an SLP filed by the department has been dismissed by the Apex Court on 2-11-2012. He would submit that decision of the Apex Court is binding and it is also his submission that the judgment of Hon’ble High Court of Gujarat in the case of NBM Industries - 2012 (276) E.L.T. 9 (Guj.) = 2013 (29) S.T.R. (208) (Guj.) has held that refund cannot be denied only on the ground that it was the deemed export and not a physical export. He would also submit that the decision of Hon’ble High Court in the case of Amitex Silk Mills Pvt. Ltd. - 2006 (194) E.L.T. 344 and it has been upheld by the Apex Court as reported at 2010 (254) E.L.T. A98 (S.C.).

Respondent Contentions:-Ld. Departmental Representative on the other hand would submit that the appellant could have sought permission from the DGFT for clearing all these goods into DTA as provided in paragraph 6.8(b) of the EXIM Policy. He would draw our attention to the EXIM Policy and submit that the appellant having not taken permission from the DGFT authority, were precluded from clearing goods into DTA on a concessional duty. He would submit that the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Jumbo Bags Ltd. - 2011 (268) E.L.T. 81 (Tri. - Chennai) clearly states that for calculation of DTA entitlement only the value of “physical exports” needs to be taken into account and the value of the “deemed exports” should not be considered. He would also submit that the judgment of Hon’ble High Court of Madras in the case of BAPL Industries Ltd. - 2007 (211) E.L.T. 23 (Mad.) is also on the same issue.

Reasoning of Judgment:-CESTAT have considered the submissions made at length by both sides and perused the case records. Tribunal also find that the issue involved is whether the appellant is eligible to clear into DTA 50% of their FOB value of exports of deemed exports or not.

It is undisputed that appellant is a 100% EOU during the relevant period. It is also undisputed that appellant was clearing the goods to DTA on payment of duty by considering the FOB value of exports, including the deemed exports value.

CESTAT find that the issue is no more res integra.

CESTAT find that in the case of Gandhi Fibers, this Bench vide order dated 11-6-2009 relying upon the judgment of Virlon Textile Mills Ltd. had allowed the appeal of the assessee holding that assessee is eligible to clear goods to Domestic Tariff Area by taking 50% of the deemed exports value as their eligibility. It is noticed that this judgment of the Tribunal has attained finality in the hands of Apex Court. Since the issue is covered by the judgment of Hon’ble High Court of Gujarat in the case of Gandhi Fibersand as also in the case of NBM Industries and Amitex Silk Mills Pvt. Ltd., we find that the impugned order is incorrect.

Reliance placed by the ld. Departmental Representative on the judgment of the Tribunal in the case of Jumbo Bags Ltd. and the judgment of Hon’ble High Court of Madras in the case of BAPL Industries Ltd. will not carry the case any further, as the Jurisdictional High Court’s decision on the very same issue is a recent one and has been upheld by the Apex Court needs to be followed.

In view of the foregoing, we find that the impugned order is unsustainable and is liable to set aside and we do so.

The impugned order is set aside and the appeal is allowed with consequential relief.

Decision:-Appeal Allowed.

Comment:- The crux of this case is that deemed exports are also considered in calculating the DTA sale entitlement of 50% of the FOB price of the goods exported by 100% EOU. This view is confirmed by the Apex Court in the case of Virlon Textile Mills Ltd. , Amitex Silk Mills Pvt. Ltd.  and Gandhi Fibers case.

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