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 /2016-17/3255

Whether discharge of arrears of duty liability by using Cenvat credit proper?

Case:- STEEL TUBES OF INDIA LTD.  VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, INDORE
 
Citation:- 2016 (337) E.L.T. 306 (Tri. - Del.)

Brief Facts:-This is an appeal against the order dated 28-3-2007 of Commissioner of Central Excise, Indore. The appellants are engaged in the manufacture of steel tubes liable to Central Excise duty. They were to discharge Central Excise duty on the goods cleared during a month by 5th of the following month. During the period, April, 2005 to July, 2005 they have not paid the duty on due dates and defaulted with the payment of a total amount of Rs. 79,10,841/-, out of which, they have deposited Rs. 28,64,774/- through cash deposit in current account and remaining of Rs. 50,46,067/- through debiting Cenvat credit account. Proceedings were initiated against the appellant to recover this amount of Rs. 50,46,067/- by cash, as the debit made in Cenvat credit account is relatable to the credits accrued after the impugned period of default in duty payment. After due process, the Original Authority confirmed the demand to be paid in cash and imposed penalty of Rs. 1,00,000/- on the appellant. He also ordered that on payment of this amount by cash, the amount already debited in Cenvat credit account will be restored to the appellant.

Appellants Contention:-Ld. Counsel for the appellant submits that the proceedings against them were not sustainable. Admittedly, they have defaulted in payment of Central Excise duty on a monthly basis during the period April, 2005 to July, 2005. However, they have fully paid the defaulted amount on 26-7-2005, 12-8-2005 and 5-10-2005 by debit entries in their Cenvat credit account. The provisions invoked by the Revenue viz. Rule 3(4) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 is not applicable in this case as they were paying a defaulted amount which is an arrear to the Government. Their payment is to discharge the duty liability which they have not done in time. The Counsel further drew attention to the order of the Original Authority to the effect that on payment of this amount by cash the Cenvat credit debit of equivalent amount will be restored to them. This clearly confirms that the duty which was defaulted has been correctly paid by them. The payment using Cenvat credit is permissible in the present case as the same is not used in the normal course of payment. In other words, the amount of arrears due to the Government is paid using partly the credit amount available in their accounts. The credits have been taken legally and there is no allegation about irregular credit, etc.

Respondents Contention:- Ld. AR, on the other hand, reiterates the findings of the Original Authority and states that the credit accrued during the latter period cannot be used to discharge duty of the earlier period.

Reasoning Of Judgement:-On hearing both sides and perusal of the case records it is found that during the impugned period the appellants have not discharged the Central Excise duty in time and defaulted. The duty liability for the impugned period was not disputed. The appellants only pleaded that they could not discharge the duty in time because of financial constraints. Later, they have paid the full amount partly by cash and partly by credit. The payment by credit which accrued after the impugned period was disputed by the Revenue. In this connection, it is found that the Board vide Circular dated 15-12-2003 clarified that the amount of duty outstanding shall be treated as recoverable arrears of revenue and all permissible action under the law including action under Section 11 of the Central Excise Act, 1944 should be taken. Considering this amount, which was liable to be paid, but not paid in time, was later paid by the appellant using partly the credit available in their accounts. In such situation, there is no reason for ordering payment of such amount by cash only and taking re-credit of the debited amount. The assessee’s right to use Cenvat credit to discharge the Central Excise duty even during the defaulted period was examined and decided by the Hon’ble High Court of Madras in the case of Malladi Drugs & Pharmaceuticals Ltd. reported in 2015-TIOL-1262-HC-MAD-CX = 2015 (323) E.L.T. 489 (Mad.). The Hon’ble High Court observed that right to pay the duty by using Cenvat credit that on accrued amount cannot be denied unless it is a case of illegality or irregular credit. 
Considering the above position, no justification is found  for the Revenue to insist on payment of all the dues for the payment of all the defaulted amount by cash only when the appellants have accrued Cenvat credit available in their accounts.

Decision:-Appeal allowed

Comment:- The crux of the case is that the Cenvat credit accrued after defaulted period is permissible to be utilized for payment of defaulted duty which is treatable as Revenue arrears as per C.B.E. & C. Circular dated 15-12-2003 . Therefore, appellant is not required to pay defaulted amount in cash, which already stands debited from Cenvat account.

Prepared By:- Ritika Mehta
 

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