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/2015-16/2702

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