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/2013-14/1926

Whether provisions of Rule 3(5A) applicable on POP moulds cleared as waste/scrap after use?

Case:-ROCA BATH ROOM PRODUCTS PVT. LTD. VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF C.EX., JAIPUR-I

Citation:-  2013(32) S.T.R. 226 (Tri.-Del.)

Brief Facts:-Appellant manufactures sanitary ware. For manufacture of sanitaryware, they make Plaster of Paris (POP) moulds. For manufacture of POP moulds they use propane gas and input services in respect of which Cenvat credit has been taken. After use, the POP moulds are sold as waste. The Department was of the view of that since in re­spect of manufacture of POP moulds, Cenvat credit on inputs and input services has been availed as per the provisions of Rule 3(5A) of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004, at the time of clearance of such scrap, an amount equal to excise duty on transac­tion value shall be payable. On this basis a show cause notice was issued for de­manding an amount equal to excise duty on the sale price of POP scrap. SCN also sought recovery of interest on duty and imposition of penalty. The SCN was adjudicated by the Assistant Commissioner vide order-in-original No. 30/31-3-2011 by which duty demand of Rs. 1,10,027/- was confirmed along with interest and besides this, equal amount of penalty was imposed. This order of Assistant Commissioner was confirmed by Commissioner (Appeals) vide order-in-appeal dated 27-1-2011/1-2-2011 against which this appeal along with stay application has been filed.
 
Appellant Contentions:-The appel­lant pleaded that Rule 3(5A) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 is not applicable, that this rule is applicable only where Cenvat credit taken capital goods have been cleared after use, as scrap, while in this case, neither any duty has been paid on POP moulds nor credit of that duty has been taken; that POP scrap is non­- excisable and hence in any case, no duty is payable on POP scrap, and that in view of this, the impugned order is not correct and hence the requirement of pre-deposit of duty demand, interest and penalty may be waived for hearing of the appeal and recovery thereof be stayed till the disposal of the appeal.
 
Respondent Contentions:-The Department opposed the stay application by reiterating the findings of the Commissioner (Appeals) in the im­pugned order.
 
Reasoning of Judgment:-We have considered the rival contentions. Prima facie, we find that Rule 3(5A) of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 provides that "if the capital goods are cleared as waste and scrap the manufacturer shall pay an amount equal to the duty leviable on transaction value". The capital goods mentioned in the sub-rule are Cenvat credit availed capital goods. Prima facie, sub-rule (5A) of Rule 3 of Cenvat Credit Rules applies in those cases where Cenvat credit availed capital goods after use in the factory are cleared as scrap and waste and only in such situation an amount equal to the duty on transaction value of such scrapped cap­ital goods shall be chargeable. In this case, POP moulds cannot be said to be cen­vated capital goods, as cenvat credit has been taken of the duty/Service Tax paid on inputs/input services, not of excise duty on POP moulds. In view of this we are of the prima facie view that the appellant have a case in their favour. Accor­dingly, the requirement, of pre-deposit of duty demand, interest and penalty is waived for hearing of the appeal and recovery thereof is stayed till the disposal of the appeal. The stay application is allowed.

Decision:-Stay Application allowed.

Comment:-The gist of this case is that the provisions of Rule 3(5) apply when capital goods are cleared as waste/scrap after use but as the POP moulds are not cenvated capital goods, prima facie the provisions of said rule are not applicable and the demand is prima facie not tenable. Consequently, the stay application was allowed.

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