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/2015-16/2935

Whether mixing of denatured elements in rectified spirit amounts to manufacture?

Case:-COMMR. OF CUS., C. EX. & S.T., BELGAUM VERSUS VISHWANATH SUGARS LTD.
 
Citation:- 2015 (325) E.L.T. 588 (Kar.)
 
Brief Facts:-This appeal is by the Commissioner of Customs, Central Excise and Service Tax questioning the order of the Appellate Tribunal in No. Excise 574/2005, dated 3-8-2009 [2010 (250) E.L.T. 390 (Tri. - Bang.)] reversing the Order-in-Original No. 12/2005, dated 22-3-2005.The respondent-assessee had availed the benefit under Cenvat credit for Rs. 2,28,85,316/- for the year 2001-02 under Rule 12 of the Cenvat Credit Rules read with 11A of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The Original Authority disputed the manufacturing process of Denatured Ethyl Alcohol, on the ground that the assessee all along manufactured only the rectified spirit. The assessee has not manufactured Denatured Ethyl Alcohol in the distillery. The Denatured Ethyl Alcohol was not manufactured in the assessee’s distillery and same is converted merely by manual adding denatured elements, that process of mixing of the denatured elements in rectified spirit is actually done in the tanker and hence the assessee cannot be treated as engaged in the manufacturing of Denatured Ethyl Alcohol.
The Original Authority by its order in original dated 23-3-2005 held that the assessee is not entitled for Cenvat Credit Scheme and he is liable to pay the balance credit of Rs. 83,56,155/-, which benefit he had availed on the basis that he had manufactured the Denatured Ethyl Alcohol in the distillery. On the basis of the same, a show cause notice was issued to the assessee dated 25-10-2004 and demand was confirmed.
The assessee who was aggrieved by the Original Order, filed an appeal before the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal in Appeal No. Excise/574/2005.
 
Reasoning Of Judgement:-The Appellate Tribunal found that the manufacturing Denatured Ethyl Alcohol was done by mixing the toxin. This process amounts to manufacturing of Denatured Ethyl Alcohol. However, the assessee’s case is that the toxin is mixed in the tank and during transportation the process of manufacturing gets completed. This process is accepted earlier, and it is a accepted practice. Till 2002, the benefit under the Cenvat Scheme is granted. Accordingly the assessee has followed the procedure applicable to the manufacturer and has been availing the Cenvat credit. It is not in dispute that what is produced is the Denatured Ethyl Alcohol. It is also not in dispute that the toxin was mixed up with Ethyl Alcohol in the tanker and the process of manufacturing was complete. The dispute with regard to whether it was done within the distillery or not. But there is no evidence to show that the mixing is done outside the distillery. The learned counsel for the appellant failed to show that the manufacturing process was outside the distillery and in fact in the original assessment it is stated that the toxin was mixed up with Ethyl Alcohol in the tanker and in the process of transportation it has become Denatured Ethyl Alcohol. Hence it is shown that Denatured Ethyl Alcohol is manufactured, as such the said manufactured product is exempted under the Cenvat Scheme, which benefit has been availed by the assessee and said practice was accepted by the authority and the benefit had been extended. They do not find any error in the order of Appellate Tribunal. Hence there is no merit in the appeal. Accordingly the appeal is dismissed.
 
Decision:-Appeal dismissed.
 
Comment:- The crux of the case is that the manual mixing of denatured toxin in Ethyl Alcohol in tankers would amounts to manufacture of Denatured Ethyl Alcohol, as process of manufacture is completed with this mixtureduring transportation only and as in the given case no evidence has been produced regarding the fact that the mixing was done outside factory/distillery. Therefore the said activity was treated as to be produced within the distillery and amounts to manufacture u/s 2(f) of Central excise act and henceforth the assessee is eligible to avail the cenvat credit.
 
Prepared By:- Neelam Jain
 

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