Chartered Accountant
Bookmark and Share
click here to subscribe our newsletter
 
 
Corporate News *  Delhi High Court - Issue of fake ITC - Court declined to entertain the writ petition against the GST demand, directing the petitioner to pursue the statutory appellate remedy *  Patna High Court - Availability of an effective statutory remedy is a strong ground for High Court to decline interference in writ proceedings, unless exceptional circumstances are established. *  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. 
Subject News *  Delhi High Court - An Advocate cannot claim client privilege as an absolute bar to a GST investigation where there is prima facie material suggesting his own involvement in the affairs under investigation. *  Madras High Court - SEZ unit is eligible to claim refund of unutilised ITC; such entitlement cannot be restricted merely because Rule 89 specifically refers to a supplier to an SEZ. *  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.  

Comments
Print   |    |  Comment

PJ/Case Law/2014-15/2393

Whether excise duty is leviable on aluminum dross which emerges as a residual product?

Case:- M/s HINDALCO INDUSTRIES LTD  Vs  CCE & ST, BBSR-II 
 
Citation:-  2014-TIOL-823-CESTAT-KOL 
 
Brief Facts:-This stay application is against the demand of duty on aluminum dross generated during the course of manufacture of finished goods. The issue had been referred to by the Co-ordinate Bench at Mumbai for consideration by the Larger Bench in view of the conflicting decisions of different Benches of this Tribunal.
 
Appellant’s Contention:-  At the outset, the ld. Advocate appearing for the Applicant, submits that the issue involved in the present case relates to leviability of excise duty on aluminum dross, which emerges as a residual product during the course of manufacture of finished goods. He submits that the issue involved is whether aluminium dross is liable to excise duty, post amendment to the definition of excisable goods prescribed at Section 2 (d) of Central Excise Act, 1944. In their own case, the issue has been referred to the Larger Bench by the Co-ordinate Bench at Mumbai vide OrderNo. M/2070/13/EB/C-II dated 25.09.2013 = 2013-TIOL-1715-CESTAT-MUM.
 
 
Respondent’s Contention:-  The ld. A.R. appearing for the Department, reiterates the findings of the ld. Commissioner (Appeals) and submits that this Tribunal in their own case, had directed earlier pre-deposit, vide Order No.S-390/Kol/2012 dated 26.04.2012.
 
Reasoning of Judgment:-  Heard both sides and perused the records. We find that the issue relates to leviability of excise duty on aluminum dross generated during the course of manufacture of finished goods. We find that the issue had been referred to by the Co-ordinate Bench at Mumbai vide Order No. M/2070/13/EB/C-II dated 25.09.2013 = 2013-TIOL-1715-CESTAT-MUM, for consideration by the Larger Bench in view of the conflicting decisions of different Benches of this Tribunal. Since, the matter is pending before the Larger Bench, we are of the view that the Applicants are able to make out a prima-facie case for total waiver of dues adjudged. Hence, pre-deposit of dues adjudged is waived and its recovery stayed during pendency of the appeal. Stay petition is allowed.
 
 
Decision:-Stay application allowed.
 
 
Comment:-The substance of this case is that when there are contrary or conflicting decisions of different benches of the tribunal, it means that the issue involves interpretation of statutory provisions and so it is fit case for waiver of pre-deposit.
 
Prepared by: Madhav Rathi

Post a Comment
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