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/2013-14/1947

Whether exemption admissible to various fabricated items of Chapter 73.08 of CETA, 1985 supplied to mega power projects?

Case:- VRINDA ENGINEERING PVT. LTD. Vs COMMISSIONER OF C. EX., HALDIA
 
Citation:-2013 (295) E.L.T. 401 (Tri. - Kolkata)

 
Brief facts:-The application was filed seeking waiver of pre-deposit of duty of Rs. 1.45 crores and equal amount of penalty imposed under Section 11AC of CEA, 1944.The applicants were engaged in the manufacture of various fabricated items falling under Chapter 73.08 of CETA, 1985 which were supplied to various mega power projects after availing exemption from payment of duty against Sl. No. 91 of Notification No. 6/2006-C.E., dated 1-3-2006.
 
Appellant’s contentions:- The ld. Sr. Advocate submitted that there was no dispute that various fabricated items falling under Chapter 73.08 of CETA, 1985 were supplied to various mega power projects and necessary certificates from the competent authority as required under the Notification No. 21/2002-Cus., dated March 1, 2002 had been obtained. The ld. Advocate submitted that the adjudicating authority had erred in not considering the fact that the fabricated structures supplied by them to various mega power projects were used as components and parts of the said projects. For example, the fabricated items supplied to M/s. Bharat Heavy Electricals Ltd. in respect of their Kuderma Thermal Power Projects, were used as parts and components of boilers. Therefore, these goods were classifiable under Sub-Heading No. 98.01 as components or raw materials for the manufacture of the various items listed in the said Tariff heading. The ld. Advocate had referred to a recent Circular No. 964/07/2012-CX., dated April 2, 2012 issued by C.B.E. & C., wherein, it had been clarified that various components used in the boilers, including structural components, had been considered as part of boiler. He also relied upon the order of this Tribunal in the case of Ramsarup Utpadak, Unit-IIv. Commr. of Central Excise, Kolkata-III - 2012 (283)E.L.T.425 (Tri.-Kolkata)wherein in the similar circumstances, this Tribunal had granted unconditional stay relating to goods viz. TMT bars falling under Chapter 72 of CETA, 1985 and used in Mega Power Projects.
 
Respondent’s contentions:-The respondent contented that the principal reason for denial of the benefit of the said exemption Notification was that the fabricated items cleared by them fall under Chapter Sub-Heading 73.08 of CETA, 1985 and could not be classifiable under Chapter Sub-Heading 98.01 of CETA, 1985.
 
Reasoning of judgment:- Heard both sides and perused the records the Bench found that the fabricated items manufactured by the Applicant were undisputedly supplied to various mega power projects and used in such projects. The only dispute for denial of the benefit of Notification No. 6/2006-C.E., dated 1-3-2006 was that the fabricated items supplied to these mega power projects being classified under Chapter heading 73.08 of CETA, 1985 and accordingly not classifiable under CSH 98.01 of CTA, 1975, hence would not be eligible to the benefit of Notification No. 21/2002-Cus., dated 1-3-2002 and consequently the condition No. 19 of the said Notification No. 6/2006 was not satisfied. This Tribunal in M/s. Ramsarup Utpadak’s case (supra) after detailed discussion of various aspects of the case,prima facie, observed that TMT bars cleared to various mega power projects, even if falls under Chapter Heading 72 of Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 would be eligible to the benefit of Notification No. 6/2006-C.E., dated 1-3-2006. In these circumstances, following the observation in the said case, they found that the applicant could able to make out a prima facie case in their favour for waiver of pre-deposit of dues. Accordingly, pre-deposit of dues adjudged was waived and its recovery was stayed during pendency of the appeal.
 
 
Decision:- Stay petition allowed.
 
Comment:-The essence of this case is that fabricated items falling under Chapter 73.08 of CETA, 1985 which are supplied to various mega power projects are eligible for exemption under the notification no. 6/2006-C.E. even if they are not classifiable under chapter 98.01 as they were used as parts and components of the boilers used in the said mega power projects. This reasoning was backed by the decision given by the Tribunal in Ramsarup case.  
 

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