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/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