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 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