Chartered Accountant
Bookmark and Share
click here to subscribe our newsletter
 
 
Corporate News *  The GSTN has issued an Advisory dated 21.04.2026 about the introduction of an Offline Tool for the Invoice Management System (IMS)  *  CBIC extends due dates for filing of FORM GSTR 3B  for the month of April 2026 *  Interest cannot be imposed in adjudication order, if not demanded/quantified in show cause notice : Allahabad HC *  Wheelchairs with toileting facility eligible for exemption: CESTAT affirms customs duty exemption to importer *  Industries urge GST council to allow inverted duty refunds on input services *  Tamil Nadu GST dept introduced virtual hearing facility for GST appeals under under section 107 of the TNGST act: detailed guidelines  *  CIC urges authorities to implement GST evasion complaint tracking system *  Even if the assessee opts "NO" for personal hearing in form DRC-06 ,The mandatory requirement under section 75(4) to grant opportunity of hearing cannot be waived:Gujarat High Court  *  Glufosinate imports curbs imposed by govt *  Government extends Re-import period for exported cut & polished diamonds *  CIC flags lack of tracking system for tax evasion complaints,urges GST authorities to improve transparency *  No Custodial Interrogation needed in GST fraud case based on documentary evidence already in Department's Possession : Chattisgarh HC *  Orders under section cannot be sustained if passed without considering the taxpayer's objections and without granting a personal hearing:Gujarat High Court *  Mere cancellation of supplier's registration cannot,by itself,justify denial of ITC or cancellation of the recipient's registration:Bombay High Court *  High Court sets aside GST notice citing factual errors and natural justice violations *  Provisional Bank Attachment under Section. 110 of Customs Act Unsustainable Beyond Statutory period without Extension order: Bombay HC orders to defreeze accounts *  Post Clearance MRP Alteration by Distributor Does not attract Differential Customs Duty: CESTAT *  DGFT Expands scope of 'Screws' classification under RoDTEP Scheme  *  E-way bills surze to all time high of 140.6 million in March *  GST Exemption Allowed on Pure Labour Services for Standalone Houses: AAR  *  GST Payable Only on Margin in Second-Hand Car Sales, Subject to Strict Conditions and No ITC Claim: AAR *  DGFT rolls out procedure for allocation of calcined coke *  GST portal update : Pre-deposit amount now editable in Appeals *  J&K HC declared TMT scrap a 'Specified Good' eligibile for GST refunds under Support Scheme  *  Pigmy agents are employees of banks; no GST can be levied on commission  paid to them : Karnataka HC *  DGFT Revises HS Code Description for Screws Under RoDTEP *  GST Registration Cancellation Invalid Without Proper Service of Notice: Allahabad High Court. *  Bengaluru CGST | GST Backlog Appeals Deadline Fixed at June 30, 2026 *  No Time Bar on Refund of Service Tax for Services Not Rendered: CESTAT  Remands Indiabulls Case for Unjust Enrichment Check. *  Supreme Court Holds Renewable Energy Incentive Must Benefit Generators, Not Be Adjusted in Tariff
Subject News *   Delhi HC Quashes Order, Says Reminder Cannot Validate Improperly Served GST SCN *  KARNATAKA HIGH COURT REMANDS GST SHORTFALL MATTER DUE TO ABSENCE OF PERSONAL HEARING   *  CESTAT cancels confiscation and penalties on imported computer cabinet cases: Custom duty restricted to 111 surplus units *  Deposit of tax during search or investigation cannot be treated as 'Voluntary Payment' : Bombay High Court *  Section 76 of the CGST cannot be invoked where the tax has already been duly deposited, even if through another registration of the same entity: Madras High Court *  Sec 74 allows use of material regardless of source; illegality or flaws in section 67 search do not vitiate valid adjudication: HC *  Inter-State transfer of ITC on Amalgamation permissible as given under section 18(3) read with rule 41 of the CGST rules, 2017: Gujarat High Court *  HC: No GST on commisson paid to Pigmy Agents *  IGST refund denial on illegible bill of lading invalid absent chance to furnish docs; merit reconsideration in appeals directed: HC *  ITC is not admissible on GST paid on leasehold rights of land used fpr setting up an air seperation plant: AAAR,Tamil Nadu *  GST: No penalty under Section 74 after voluntary ITC reversal due to non-existent supplier : High Court *  TN AAAR denies GST ITC on Land Lease under Sec. 17(5)(d) for setting up plant and machinery *  GST proceedings quashed as notices sent to old address, despite updated address in registration *  Importer Can’t Be Penalised for Alleged IGCR Procedural Lapses Without Evidence of Departmental Error: CESTAT *  Structured Healthcare Training Not ‘Charitable Activity’, 18% GST Payable: AAR  *  CESTAT As The Appellate Authority For Central Sales Tax Disputes: A Paradigm Shift Under Finance Act, 2023 *   Rs. 25K Cost Imposed On SGST Joint Commissioner for Attaching Bank  Accounts Without Forming Mandatory “Opinion”: Bombay HC *   Ex-Parte GST Order Without Hearing Violates Natural Justice: Karnataka  High Court Quashes Adjudication and Bank Attachment.  *   Retrospective GST Cancellation Can’t Invalidate Genuine Transactions:  Jaipur Commissioner (Appeals) Quashes Rs. 95,670 ITC Demand. *   GST Pre-Deposit Non-Compliance: Allahabad High Court Allows Appeal  Subject to Rs. 30 Lakh Balance Deposit, Recognises Offline Filing. *  Documentary Nature of Evidence: Allahabad High Court Grants Bail in Rs. 32.66 Crore Fake ITC Fraud Case *  Supreme Court Flags Systemic Bias in Army’s Permanent Commission Process for Women Officers *  Re-Determination of Land Compensation Can Be Based on Appellate Court Awards, Clarifies Scope of S. 28-A: Supreme Court. *  Supreme Court Imposes Rs. 5 Lakh Costs On Rent Authority Officer For Acting Beyond Jurisdiction. *  DGGI Meerut | Court Denies Bail to Accused in Claiming Fake ITC And Export Refunds *  Denial of GST Rate Revision Benefit to Contractor Violates Article 14: Rajasthan HC *  GST Registration Cancellation for Non-Filing of Returns: Gauhati High Court Directs Restoration on Compliance. *   Supreme Court Quashes FEMA Adjudication Orders, Revives Proceedings at  Show Cause Stage. *   Higher Rank, Harsher Punishment Justified: Supreme Court Restores Dismissal  of Bank Manager in Misappropriation Case. *   Limitation for Export Refund to Be Counted from Foreign Exchange Realisation,  Not From Export Invoices Issuance: CESTAT  

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