Chartered Accountant
Bookmark and Share
click here to subscribe our newsletter
 
 
Corporate News *  GST registration cancellation without reasons amounts to ‘Economic Death’ of business: Supreme Court. *  No GST refund if appeal before GSTAT is filed late: Gujarat High Court. *  Mere upload of GST notice on portal not valid service, appeal limitation won’t start: Punjab & Haryana High Court. *  Taxpayer can’t be penalised for missing notices hidden under ‘Additional Notices/Orders’: Calcutta High Court allows fresh adjudication. *  State tax officer can’t issue GST SCN beyond CBIC-assigned jurisdiction: Bombay High Court stays recovery proceedings. *  Earlier 7.5% Pre-Deposit must count towards mandatory 10% for Appeal: Uttarakhand high court quashes CESTAT Order. *  Third Parties can’t challenge GST Advance Rulings merely due to financial impact: Karnataka HC *  GST SCN generated using AI tool quashed: Punjab & Haryana High Court *  Bank Attachment Quashed as Madras HC Quashes GST Order Issued Against Deceased Person *  ITC Blocking Order for Failure to Record ‘Reason to Believe’ U/R 86A Quashed: Allahabad High Court *  Govt Extends GSTAT Appeal Filing Deadline From 30 June to July 31, 2026 *  GST Demand on RWA Stayed: Allahabad High Court Questions Taxability of Electricity Distribution to Flat Owners *  CBIC Clarifies Jurisdiction After GST Registration Transfer: Earlier Proceedings Remain Valid, New Officer to Continue Action *  GST authorities’ certification not mandatory for reimbursement, but tax payment must be proven: Karnataka HC *  Contractor can’t seek gst reimbursement through writ when contract has arbitration clause: Karnataka HC *  Unsigned Order Is No Order in Law: AP HC Quashes GST Assessment Order for Want of Officer’s Signature *  Customs Can’t Levy Rs. 1.36 Crore Cost Recovery Charges Without Proof of Full-Day Officer Deployment: CESTAT  *  12% IGST Payable On Imported Dialysis Machine Parts: CESTAT *  Bombay High Court Admits Challenge to GST Limitation Extension Notifications; Grants Protection Against Coercive Recovery *  Criminal Case Can’t Run Parallel to GST Proceedings on Same Facts: Allahabad High Court *  Allahabad High Court Stays GST Detention Order; Directs Release of Vehicle and Goods on Deposit of Rs. 1.44 Lakh *  Service Tax Can’t Be Levied on Loss-Making Contracts: Gujarat High Court *  GSTN Mandates Ship-to GSTIN in e-Invoice and e-Way Bill APIs; Introduces Voluntary e-Way Bill Closure Facility from August 1, 2026 *  GST Appeal Can’t Be Rejected as Time-Barred When Taxpayer Was Pursuing Rectification Remedy: Telangana High Court *  Absence of E-Way Bill and Transport Documents Justifies Customs Seizure U/s 110: Gauhati HC *  Madras High Court Upholds GST Late Fee and Penalty for Non-Filing of Annual Return, Dismisses Challenge  *  GST Records, Purchase Documents Sufficient to Discharge Burden Under Customs Act: CESTAT Orders Release of 3.65 Kg Gold  *  No Sugar Cess Payable on Sugar Exported Out of India: CESTAT *  Road Construction Services Exempt and SCN Time-Barred: CESTAT Quashes Service Tax Demand Based Solely on Form 26AS  *  ITC Freeze Upheld After GST Dept Find Suppliers Were Allegedly Fake Bill-Trading Entities: Madras HC 
Subject News *  Input service benefits can’t be denied: CESTAT allows export refund despite MMTC acting as Canalising agency. *  No service tax demand without proof of service of SCN: CESTAT. *  Service tax demand quashed as dept. fails to prove service of SCN: CESTAT *  GST : Mere allegation of inadequate consideration of reply not enough to invoke writ jurisdiction: Delhi High Court *  Onerous conditions imposed for provisional release of seized imported goods shouldn’t amount to virtual denial of relief: CESTAT. *  GST SCN without alleging fraud cannot invoke sec. 74: Karnataka High Court quashes adjudication order. *  Extended Limitation Can’t Be Invoked Merely on Form 26AS Data: CESTAT *  Revenue-Sharing with Restaurants Not Taxable as Business Support Service: CESTAT *  R. 6(3) Option Can’t Be Forced on Taxpayer; CESTAT Quashes Rs. 12.36 Crore CENVAT Credit Demand *  Excise Duty | Power Consumption Alone Can’t Prove Clandestine Manufacture: Karnataka High Court *  Madras High Court Examines DGGI’s Authority to Issue GST Penalty Orders Under Section 122, Adds DGGI as Party *  Proceedings under omitted r. 96(10) can’t survive without saving clause: andhra pradesh high court quashes gst refund recovery *  Excise duty power consumption alone can’t prove clandestine manufacture: karnataka high court *  Madras high court rules GST show cause notices must disclose grounds for invoking extended limitation *  Court Can’t Direct Extension GST Return Deadlines or Waive Interest and Penalties: Karnataka High Court *  GST Notifications Can’t Go Beyond GST Council Recommendations: Madras High Court Quashes SCN on Branded Pulses *  Appeal Can’t Be Dismissed for Delay When Dept’s Own Order Mis-states Limitation Period: CESTAT *  No Evidence of KYC or Due Diligence Breach By Customs Broker: CESTAT Quashes Licence Revocation in Export Overvaluation Case *  Glucometers Are Chemical Analysis Instruments Classifiable Under Tariff Heading 9027: CESTAT *  Validity of Post-GST Service Tax Proceedings Upheld: Gujarat High Court Dismisses Challenge to S. 73 SCN *  Rectified GST Refund Applications Can’t Be Rejected as Time-Barred If Original Refund Claim Was Filed Within Limitation: Gujarat HC *  Service Tax Refund Can’t Be Denied as Time-Barred When Levy Itself Is Unconstitutional: Gujarat High Court *  Same Officer Can’t Act As Auditor & Adjudicator: Karnataka High Court *  Karnataka High Court Condones 324-Day Delay, Revives Customs Appeal in Jewellery Pilferage Case  *  Madras High Court Quashes GST Assessment Order Passed Ex Parte Despite Prior ITC Reversal; Lifts Bank Attachment *  Tobacco Process Doesn’t Amount to Manufacturing: Madras High Court Quashes Rs. 1.32 Crore Compensation Cess Demand  *  Recovery Notice Unsustainable After Voluntary Reversal of Unutilised Credit: CESTAT  *  GST | ‘System Generated’ SCN Without Officer Details Invalid: Allahabad HC  *  Electronic Records Without Statutory Certification Requirements Can’t Justify Undervaluation Allegations: CESTAT *  Madras High Court Stays GST Order, Finds Prima Facie Merit in Plea Against S. 74 Proceedings Based on S. 73 Intimation  

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