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/2012-13/1221

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