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/2012-13/2038

Whether sugar syrup manufactured as intermediate product for use in biscuits is eligible for SSI exemption?
Case:- SHAH FOODS LTD. V/S COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, AHMEDABAD-III

Citation: - 2013 (297) E.L.T. 454 (Tri.-Ahmd.)

 
Brief Facts:- The assessee filed this stay application for the waiver of pre deposit of duty amount of Rs. 10,52,955/-, interest thereof and equivalent amount of penalty. These amounts have been confirmed by the first appellate authority on the ground that the appellant is not eligible to avail benefit of small scale industry to the intermediate products manufactured by them which falls under Chapter 17.
 
 
Appellant’s Contention:-The appellants submit that they are manufacturing biscuits. During the course of manufacturing of the biscuits, they also have to manufacture sugar syrup, as a requirement, for manufacture of biscuits. It is their submission that the said sugar syrup falls under Chapter 17 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. They submit that the first appellate authority has held against them only on the ground that benefit of Notification No. 8/2006 is not applicable to the products which fall under Chapter 17. They made attention to the corrigendum issued by the Central Government, to notification which is reproduced in the appeal memoranda and submit that the product sugar falls under Chapter 17 has been subsequently included in Notification No. 8/2006. They submit that this corrigendum has not been considered by the first appellate authority to come to a conclusion. Hence, it is their submission that the matter may be remanded to the first appellate authority to reconsider the issue afresh.
 
 
Respondent’s Contention: -The Respondents submitted that the benefit of Notification No. 8/2006 needs to be claimed by the appellant and cannot be granted as such. At the same time it is his submission that the first appellate authority has not considered this corrigendum as it was not brought to his notice.
 
Reasoning of Judgment: - The Hon’ble Tribunal held that after hearing both the sides for some time on the stay petition, they find that the appeal itself could be disposed of at this juncture hence after allowing the application for the waiver of the pre-deposit of the amounts involved, they take up the appeal for disposal. They find that the entire issue revolves around the fact that whether the appellant is eligible for the benefit of SSI exemption under Notification No. 8/2006-C.E., dated 1-3-2006 on the intermediate products i.e. sugar syrup that comes into existence during the manufacture of biscuits. The said intermediate product sugar syrup is undisputedly classifiable under Chapter 17 of the First Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. On perusal of the corrigendum to budget notifications which is reproduced by the appellant in his grounds of appeal, they find that the said corrigendum does indicate that the products fall under the Chapters 9 to 20 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 are included for the benefit of Notification No. 8/2006. Thus, they viewed that the first appellate authority needs to reconsider the issue in light of the said corrigendum to Notification No. 8/2006-C.E. Accordingly, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, keeping all the issues open, they set aside the impugned order and remand the matter back to the first appellate authority to reconsider the issue afresh after following the principles of natural justice.
 
Decision:- The appeal was allowed by way of remand.
 
 
 
Comment:-The analogy that is drawn from this case is that the intermediate product sugar syrup is undisputedly classifiable under Chapter 17 of the First Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. The corrigendum to budget notifications also indicates that the products fall under the Chapters 9 to 20 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 are included for the benefit of Notification No. 8/2006. Hence, the said intermediate products are eligible for the exemption.
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