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 Laws/2012-13/1144

Whether the appellant is entitled for availing the CENVAT Credit of Service Tax paid on transportation in respect of empty containers from yard to the factory for stuffing of goods and thereafter transportation charges of the containers from the factory t
Case: CENTURY RAYON V/S COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, THANE-I
 
Citation: 2012(280) E.L.T. 561 (Tri.-Mumbai)
 
Issue:- Whether the appellant is entitled for availing the CENVAT Credit of Service Tax paid on transportation in respect of empty containers from yard to the factory for stuffing of goods and thereafter transportation charges of the containers from the factory to the port?
 
Brief Facts: - The appellant is engaged in the manufacture of excisable goods namely Viscose Filament yarn and Chemicals falling under Chapter heading 54, 55, 59 and 28 of Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. The appellant has availed the CENVAT Credit in respect of goods transport services for transportation of empty container to the appellant's factory at Shahad for stuffing of export final products and retransformation of stuffed container to the port of the export. The department was of the view that CENVAT Credit in respect of empty container transportation to the factory and after stuffing sent to the port of export was not admissible to them. Accordingly, a show-cause notice dated 2nd February, 2009 was issued to them which was adjudicated by Deputy Commissioner on 2nd July 2009 denying the CENVAT Credit to the appellant and imposing the interest and penalty on the appellant. The appellant preferred an appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) against the Order-in-Original who vide the impugned order rejected their appeal and appellant is in appeal before the Tribunal.
 
Appellant’s Contention: - The appellants contended that the appellant has transported the empty containers from the yard for stuffing of the goods in the empty containers and thereafter container was sent to the port of export. Therefore, all the transportation services in respect of bringing empty containers and thereafter taking the loaded container to the port of export are in respect of the goods exported and therefore, they are eligible for availment of the CENVAT Credit of tax paid on GTA services in respect of transportation of empty containers to their factory as well as loaded container to the port of export.
He relied on the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Balkrishna Industries Ltd. v. C.C.E., Aurangabad reported in 2011 (24) S.T.R. 433 (Tri. - Mumbai) wherein it was held that transport of export goods includes transport of empty containers from yard to the factory for stuffing of the export goods. He also relied on the decision of the Tribunal in the case of C.C.E., Jaipur v. Nitin Spinners Ltd. - 2009 (16) S.T.R. 323 (Tri. - Del.) = 2012 (276) E.L.T. 112 (Tribunal), wherein the credit of services tax paid on freight of empty containers was allowed by the Tribunal. As regards the transportation of the goods from factory to the port of export, he submitted that since the goods are exported on FOB basis, the value of the exported goods includes transportation of the goods from the factory to port, therefore, they are eligible for CENVAT Credit of GTA service.
 
Respondent’s Contention: - The respondents reiterated the findings of the lower authority.
 
 
Reasoning of Judgment: - The Hon’ble Tribunal held that as regards the credit of the Service Tax paid on freight for empty containers for bringing containers from yard to the factory, the issue has been settled by the Tribunal in the case of Nitin Spinners Ltd. (supra) holding that Service Tax paid on freight for empty containers called for export of the goods is admissible. Therefore, in view of the above decision the appellant is also entitled for availment of CENVAT Credit in respect of freight charges paid by the appellant for bringing in the empty containers. As regards paying the transportation of goods in containers from the factory to the port of export, these charges are in relation to the transport of export goods. Notification No. 18 /2009-S.T., dated 7- 7-2009, exempts the taxable service received by an exporter in respect of the transport of goods from place of removal to port of export. Since the tax is exempted on these transportation charges, if tax has been paid by the appellant to department, credit of the same will be available to the exporter particularly when the value in respect of the goods is FOB basis which includes all expenses up to the port of export goods. Therefore, appellant is entitled to avail credit of Service Tax in respect of these charges also. Since amount credit is admissible to the appellant for bringing empty containers to factory and thereafter transporting the loaded containers to the port of export, mere not splitting of these charges separately will not disentitle them for CENVAT Credit.
 
Decision: - The appeal 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