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/2012-13/1221

Whether the Modvat Credit is available to the assessee on the quantity short received in the factory and the same was not used in the manufacture of final product
Case: -UNION OF INDIA V/S BHILWARA SPINNING LTD.
 
Citation: - 2008(222) E.L.T. 362 (Raj.)
 
Issue:- Whether the Modvat Credit is available to the assessee on the quantity short received in the factory and the same was not used in the manufacture of final product?
 
Brief Facts: - The respondent-assessee was in receipt of consignment of HFO in his factory from the importer under relevant invoice evidencing the payment of Countervailing Duty on the goods consigned under that invoice by the importer. The respondent-assessee was entitled to avail Modvat credit on that basis. The assessee had received in factory the consignment as a whole directly, but actual quantity of HFO was marginally less than the actual quantity stated in invoice resulting in normal loss on account of transit operation. The assessee has availed the Modvat credit on the basis of Countervailing Duty paid on the goods received by him as per invoice. The payment was evidenced by the invoices. However, the Assistant Commissioner pointed out that to the extent the lesser quantity of HFO was received in the factory, the assessee is not entitled to avail Modvat credit on such short receipt of the HFO and directed withdrawal of Modvat credit to that extent.
The short receipt in the factory premises was found to be less than ½% of the total quantity which according to the fact finding authority was due to normal transit loss. The Commissioner Excise (Appeals) as well as the Tribunal vide orders dated 5-5-03 and 22-1-04 respectively were of the opinion that the assessee is entitled to avail full Modvat credit on the basis of CVD paid on inputs received by him in factory as evidenced by the invoices, but the marginal loss of goods in transit as a result of normal evaporation and transit loss cannot be taken note of for the purposes of reducing the Modvat credit. Since the availing of Modvat credit was found to be in order, the penalty levied by Assessing Officer for availing of Modvat credit more than entitlement, was also set aside.
Appellant’s Contention: - The appellant contended that Modvat credit is available on the inputs used and therefore, the actual quantity consigned under the invoices is not relevant consideration.
 
Respondent’s Contention: - The respondent submits that in the facts and circumstances, there being no case of diversion of the goods from the place of commencement of journey until the place of receipt in the factory and full utilisation of the quantity of input received in the factory for the purposes of manufacturing the end product, they on the basis of CVD paid by the importer on such goods as per invoice are eligible for availing Modvat credit. It was also urged that in the facts and circumstances, the entire CVD was paid in respect of the quantity of goods received by the assessee in his factory and utilised by him and not on any other part of the commodity.
Reasoning of Judgment: - The Hon’ble High Court held that they are agree with the view taken by the Tribunal that in the facts and circumstances, when it is not in dispute that there is no diversion of the goods covered under the invoices in question and entire goods received under consignment has not been put to any use other than as input in the end product manufactured by the assessee and the transit loss was found by the Tribunal to be normal loss due to evaporation, it must be held that the CVD paid by the consigner/importer was paid in respect of the goods entire used by the assessee as inputs in the manufacture of end product.
 
 Moreover, Rule 57(9) envisages that such amount of Modvat credit availed by the assessee, which is evidenced by the invoices, has inherent co-relation with the payment of duty with goods covered by such invoices. Where the CVD, Customs or Excise duty on the inputs received by the assessee in the factory and used by him in manufacturing of end product has correlation with the evidence of the payment about the duty on the entire goods received and used in the factory, no curtailment of Modvat credit as evidenced by the invoices is permissible.
 
The mode of proof of quantity and payment of duty on inputs received and used as input is by producing the invoices. Unless the invoices are found to be wrong or diversion of inputs received under invoice to any other use is found, there is no provision to avail lesser Modvat credit than what has been proved to have been paid on the entire goods received and used in factory of manufacturer. The conclusion reached by the Tribunal is, therefore, justified and does not call for any interference. Since the Modvat credit has rightly been availed by the assessee, the question of penalty for over availment of Modvat credit also would not arise. Therefore they are not adverting to the alternative ground that even if Modvat credit has wrongly been availed on the part of goods received, still there being no deliberate attempt on the part of the assessee to avail such extra Modvat credit.
 
Decision: - Appeal dismissed.
 
Comment:-This point of short receipt of material is always raised by the field formation. Even for small variation in receipt of goods, they ask for reversal of credit. But it is clearly held in this case that the normal loss is allowable and there is no need to reverse the credit. Let us hope the smart field formation will follow this decision.
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