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/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