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/2015-16/2702

Whether EOU debarred from availing credit on the ground that they can procure inputs duty free?
Case:-UNIWORTH LIMITED VERSUS COMMR. OF CENTRAL EXCISE & SERVICE TAX, RAIPUR
 
Citation:- 2015 (315) E.L.T.307 (Tri. – Del.)

 
Brief Facts:-Stay application along with appeal has been filed against Order-in-Appeal No. 302/RPR-1/2013, dated 21-8-2013 which upheld Order-in-Original No. 325-327/CH:51/RPR/ADC, dated 30-11-2006 in terms of which Cenvat credit amounting to Rs. 1,38,59,015/- was disallowed and ordered to be recovered along with interest and penalty of Rs. 25 lakhs was also imposed. The show cause notice in this case was issued on 5-5-2006 and the period of dispute is September, 2004 to September, 2005.The facts briefly stated are as under :
The appellant are 100% EOU and procured goods duty free under Notification No. 1/95-C.E., dated 1-3-1995/Notification No. 22/2003-C.E., dated 31-3-2005. They also procured furnace oil on payment of duty and took Cenvat credit thereof. The adjudicating authority held that vide Circular No. 54/2004-Cus., dated 13-10-2004 the Board has stated that an EOU has an option either to procure the goods from DTA without payment of duty under CT-3 procedure or to procure the goods on payment of duty and avail Cenvat credit. Based thereon and in view of the fact that appellant have been procuring some goods duty free, the adjudicating authority held that as they were allowed only one of the two options they were debarred from procuring goods on payment of duty and so the credit of duty on furnace oil was disallowed.
 
Appellants Contention:-At the very outset, it needs to be mentioned that C.B.E. & C. Circulars do not have the legal force of statutory Rules or Notifications nor can they alter the scope thereof. It is seen that as per Rule 3 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 100% EOUs are fully eligible to take Cenvat credit of duty paid on inputs used in or in relation to the manufacture of final products because this rule does not make any exception as regards 100% EOUs. Notification No. 18/2004-C.E. (N.T.), dated 6-9-2004 did not in any way affect the eligibility of the EOU for taking Cenvat credit; it only allowed them the facility to pay duty either by debit to the PLA or by debit to the Cenvat credit account. Prior to 6-9-2004, the EOUs could only pay duty through the PLA, Thus, the eligibility of EOUs for taking Cenvat credit of duty paid on the inputs received is in no way related to the issuance of Notification No. 18/2004-C.E. (N.T.).

Respondents Contention:-The Board has stated that an EOU has an option either to procure the goods from DTA without payment of duty under CT-3 procedure or to procure the goods on payment of duty and avail Cenvat credit. Based thereon and in view of the fact that appellant have been procuring some goods duty free, the adjudicating authority held that as they were allowed only one of the two options they were debarred from procuring goods on payment of duty and so the credit of duty on furnace oil was disallowed.
 
Reasoning Of Judgement:-At the very outset, it needs to be mentioned that C.B.E. & C. Circulars do not have the legal force of statutory Rules or Notifications nor can they alter the scope thereof. It is seen that as per Rule 3 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 100% EOUs are fully eligible to take Cenvat credit of duty paid on inputs used in or in relation to the manufacture of final products because this rule does not make any exception as regards 100% EOUs. Notification No. 18/2004-C.E. (N.T.), dated 6-9-2004 did not in any way affect the eligibility of the EOU for taking Cenvat credit; it only allowed them the facility to pay duty either by debit to the PLA or by debit to the Cenvat credit account. Prior to 6-9-2004, the EOUs could only pay duty through the PLA, Thus, the eligibility of EOUs for taking Cenvat credit of duty paid on the inputs received is in no way related to the issuance of Notification No. 18/2004-C.E. (N.T.). While tribunal have already stated that Board Circulars do not have any binding effect on the adjudicating authorities, even so, it is seen that the said circular of the Board in Para 4 states as under :
“4.At present, EOUs (including STP/EHTP units) are allowed to import as well as procure goods from domestic tariff area without payment of duty. Therefore, there was no necessity for extending Cenvat credit facility to them. However, some EOU’s have to procure their raw materials on payment of duty also, (emphasis added). As a trade facilitation measure, it has been decided to allow EOUs (including STP/EHTP units) an option either to procure the goods from DTA without payment of duty under CT-3 procedure or to procure the goods on payment of duty and avail CENVAT credit. The credit could be utilised by them as per the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004, including payment of duty on their DTA sales”.
A plain reading of the above para reveals that it does not necessarily mean that an EOU has to either procure all their goods duty free or procure all their goods on payment of duty. The sentence “Some EOU’s have to procure their raw materials on payment of duty also” contained in the said para makes it clear that EOUs can procure their raw material either duty free or on payment of duty. Be that as it may, the legal position is clear that the 100% EOU’s are eligible to take Cenvat credit of duty paid on the raw material procured by them for use in or in relation to the manufacture of their final product. Seen in this light the Board circular stating that the EOU’s have been allowed to avail Cenvat credit can only mean that now they can utilise the same. In the case of Tata Tea Limitedv. CCE, Cochin- 2006 (200)E.L.T.81 (Tri.-Bang.),the Tribunal held as under :
“Even though, the appellant is a 100% EOU, and could have obtained the input free of duty by following the procedure in Notification 1/95, they obtained the input on payment of duty and were allowed to take Cenvat Credit. These facts are not under dispute. Rule 5 of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2002 provides for refund of Cenvat credit taken on any input used in the manufacture of final products, which are cleared for export. There is nothing in the Rule which states that, this rule is not applicable to 100% EOU”.
In view of the foregoing, the appeal is allowed.
 
Decision:- Appeal allowed.

Comment:- The crux of the case is that there is no restriction for 100% EOU to procure some of their goods duty free and some goods on payment of duty. According to Rule 3 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 100% EOUs are also equally eligible to take Cenvat credit of duty paid on inputs used in or in relation to the manufacture of final products and this rule also does not make any exception as regards 100% EOUs as they can also procure their raw material either duty free or on payment of duty. This view is also supported by the decision given in the case of Tata Tea Limitedv. CCE, Cochin.

Prepared By:- Neelam Jain
 
 
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