Chartered Accountant
Bookmark and Share
click here to subscribe our newsletter
 
 
Corporate News *  Dept. Can’t Classify Product as Zarda Scented Tobacco After Repeatedly Approving It As Chewing Tobacco: CESTAT *  Mere Uploading Of GST Order On Portal Is Not “Valid” Service: Tripura HC *  CGST Can Proceed Even If SGST Closed Similar Case Earlier: Delhi HC *  SC upholds 28% GST on online gaming with retrospective effect. *  West Bengal Govt cuts E-way Bill Threshold limit to Rs. 50,000 for intra-state goods movement. *  Criminal Prosecution Under Central Excise Act Can’t Continue After CESTAT Sets Aside Duty Demand on Merits: Punjab & Haryana High Court. *  Madras High Court Quashes GST Assessment Orders for Denial of Personal Hearing; Remands Matter Subject to 10% Deposit *  Ex Parte GST Order: Madras High Court Directs Immediate Removal of Bank/ITC Attachment Upon 25% Deposit *  J.K. Cement Receives GST Demand Order of Rs 8,02,113/- from Ahmedabad Tax Authority *  Delhi Police EOW Busts Alleged Rs. 128 Crore GST Fake Invoice Network. *  REPLY TO SCN CAN’T BE TREATED AS “EMPTY FORMALITY”: ORISSA HIGH COURT QUASHES GST DEMAND OF RS. 57.30 LAKH *  Challenge to CGST Provisions restricting ITC to Bonafide Purchasers : Allahabad HC issues notice *  CBIC Notifies Revised Customs Tariff Values for Edible Oils, Gold, Silver, Brass Scrap and Areca Nuts *  Delhi HC Orders Removal of GST Attachment After Statutory 1 Year Period Expired *  GSTAT Extends Relaxed Appeal Filing Guidelines till December 31, 2026 *  AO fails to Provide Import - Export Data from DGFT to Taxpayer for Reconciliation *  Gold, Silver Imports To Get Costlier As Govt Raises Customs Duty To 10%  *  GSTAT Enables Pre-Payment Access to Document Upload and Checklist for GST Appeal Filing *  GST Portal Restrictions Can’t Override Statute: Gujarat HC Allows Cross-State Transfer Of CGST ITC After Amalgamation *  Centre Revises HS Codes for Large Diameter Steel Pipes Used in Oil & Gas Pipelines *  Customs Duty Liability Arises On Warehouse Clearance Date: Supreme Court *  Government lifts export ban on de-oiled rice bran *  CESTAT Grants 12% Interest on Pre-Deposit for Investigation from Date of Deposit till Refund and Denies Interest on Interest. *  Government Overhauls GST Classification Framework for Non-Alcoholic Beverages; Fruit Juice Drinks, Milk-Based Beverages and Caffeinated Drinks to Attract Revised 5% and 40% GST Rates from May 1, 2026 *  India’s gross GST collections hit a record Rs 2.42 lakh crore in April, up 8.7% *  Customs clearance stalled, revenue hit over MRP dispute *  Shipping Corporation explores Middle East routes as Hormuz tensions disrupt cargo movement *  India, Kenya signs MoU for exchange of pre-arrival customs information *  No demand of Taxes under Reverse Charge if Tax Already Discharged by Service Provider under forward charge *  The India-New Zealand Free Trade Agreement, signed "once-in-a-generation" deal that eliminates tariffs on 100% of Indian exports to New Zealand
Subject News *  Consignment Sales Can’t Be Reclassified as Inter-State Sales Based on Pre-Agreement Evidence: CESTAT *  Exporter Can’t Be Denied Advance Authorization Benefit Due To ICEGATE Technical Glitch: Delhi High Court *  No GST Demand For Mere Wrong Set-Off Of IGST Credit Under CGST And SGST Heads: Kerala HC. *  Cenvat Credit Can’t Be Denied on Input Services Having Nexus With Manufacturing Activities: CESTAT *  Pending Proceedings Can’t Survive Without Saving Clause: Calcutta High Court Quashes GST Demand of Rs. 6.28 Crore After Omission of Rule 96(10) *  Madras HC Quashes GST Demands on TASMAC (Tamil Nadu State Marketing Corporation) Bar Licence Fee *  GST Proceedings Cannot Survive Omitted Rule Without Saving Clause: Calcutta HC *  Provisional Release Can’t Be Denied Solely On Dept. Suspicion Of Misclassification And Undervaluation Of Imported Goods: CESTAT *  Businesses Should Not Be Kept Outside GST Regime Without Due Process: Gauhati High Court *  Punjab & Haryana HC Directs Reconsideration of Contractors’ Claim for Additional GST Payment After Tax Rate Hike From 12% to 18% *  S. 108 Statements Can’t Be Sole Basis Without Following Section 138B Procedure: CESTAT *  Bombay High Court Frames Key Questions on Mandatory Distribution of ITC U/s 20 CGST Act *  Filing of Annexure-B for Refund Applications involving Accumulated ITC using the offline utility in GST portal: GSTN *  No Service Tax on Parent Company’s Un-Invoiced Cost Allocations Without Actual Service or Consideration: CESTAT  *  Calcutta High Court Upholds GST Classification of Polypropylene Leno Bags as Plastic Products *  DRC-01 Summary Can’t Replace Mandatory SCN: Gauhati High Court *  GSTAT Issues Major Bench Allocation Framework; All Appeals to First Go Before Division Bench *  ITC Blocking Without Reasoned Order Violates Rule 86A; Punjab & Haryana HC Directs Release of Credit *  Allahabad HC Refuses Bail to CGST Superintendent In Rs. 70 Lakh Bribery Case *  S.130 Can’t Be Invoked Without Prior Tax Determination U/s 73/74: Allahabad High Court Quashes GST Confiscation Proceedings *  SC grants Bail to Rs 54cr GST case  *  Karnataka HC Sets Aside Duplicate GST Orders, Orders Fresh Hearing on GSTIN Cancellation *  DRC-01 Summary Can’t Replace Mandatory SCN: Gauhati High Court *  Transfer Of Unutilized ITC After Amalgamation - Supreme Court Issues Notice *  PUNJAB & HARYANA HC QUASHES GST CANCELLATION NOTICE FOR FAILURE TO PROVIDE CBIC ENQUIRY REPORT *  LICENSE FEE, TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE CHARGES NOT INCLUDIBLE IN CUSTOMS VALUE UNLESS THEY ARE A CONDITION OF SALE: CESTAT *  DELHI HC ORDERS REMOVAL OF GST ATTACHMENT AFTER STATUTORY 1 YEAR PERIOD EXPIRED *  CUSTOMS BROKER CAN’T BE FAULTED JUST BECAUSE EXPORTER’S GST REGISTRATION WAS PREVIOUSLY CANCELLED: CESTAT   *  Supreme Court Dismisses Review Plea Against Delhi HC Ruling Holding Real Operator Behind Fake GST Firms Liable As ‘Taxable Person  *  GST Appeal Can’t Be Rejected Merely Because DRC-07 Was Not Uploaded On Portal: Bombay High Court  

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