Chartered Accountant
Bookmark and Share
click here to subscribe our newsletter
 
 
Corporate News *  Gross GST collections surge 15.4% to reach Rs 2.11 lakh crore in July 2026. *  Ghaziabad DGGI | Court Extends Judicial Custody of 2 Accused Involved In GST Fake ITC Fraud of ?31.57 Crore Till 7 August 2026 *  Uploading GST Orders on Portal Alone Is Not Valid Service: Punjab & Haryana High Court *  Company Must Be Made Accused Before Fastening Vicarious Liability Against Director In GST Prosecution: Punjab & Haryana High Court. *  No liability without proof of prior knowledge of import misdeclaration: CESTAT drops penalties on customs broker orders. *  4-Day hearing notice violated natural justice: Rajasthan High court quashes Ex-parte GST registration cancellation appeal order. *  10% GST penalty pre-deposit rule not applicable where SCN issued before 1st October 2025: Delhi High Court. *  Stock discrepancy alone can’t prove clandestine removal: CESTAT. *  Dept. can’t deny refund for missing challan in its own records: CESTAT. *  GST dept. can’t arbitrarily treat same services as ‘Intermediary’ for one period and ‘Export of Services’ for others: Punjab & Haryana High Court. Orders. *  Manufacturers can’t claim proportionate cess relief for machines installed during the month: Gujarat High Court. *  GST dept. can’t rely on Prospective rule. 88B amendment to ignore existing judicial precedent: Gujarat HC. *  ITC relief denied where supplier fails to deposit tax: Supreme Court upholds validity of sec. 16(2)(c) of CGST Act. *  Redemption fine can’t be ground to reject SVLDRS declaration: Rajasthan High Court *  Whether dept. can invoke sec. 73 without challenging refund sanction order    - Telangana High court stays GST refund recovery. *  GST recovery against genuine buyer before proceeding against defaulting supplier stayed: Karnataka High Court. *  Assessment order uploaded under wrong portal tab: Karnataka High Court restores GST appeal, condones delay *  CBIC plans faceless GST system; refunds, registration and assessments may go digital in phases *  Bombay High Court warns GST dept. over refund delays, considers 18% interest and recovery from erring officials. *  Failure to issue mandatory ASMT-10 notice vitiates GST proceedings: Rajasthan High Court. *  GST SCN against dead proprietor invalid: Orissa High Court *  GST registration revived despite time-barred appeal, subject to full tax payment: Himachal Pradesh HC *  GST registration cancellation without reasons amounts to ‘Economic Death’ of business: Supreme Court. *  No GST refund if appeal before GSTAT is filed late: Gujarat High Court. *  Mere upload of GST notice on portal not valid service, appeal limitation won’t start: Punjab & Haryana High Court. *  Taxpayer can’t be penalised for missing notices hidden under ‘Additional Notices/Orders’: Calcutta High Court allows fresh adjudication. *  State tax officer can’t issue GST SCN beyond CBIC-assigned jurisdiction: Bombay High Court stays recovery proceedings. *  Earlier 7.5% Pre-Deposit must count towards mandatory 10% for Appeal: Uttarakhand high court quashes CESTAT Order. *  Third Parties can’t challenge GST Advance Rulings merely due to financial impact: Karnataka HC *  GST SCN generated using AI tool quashed: Punjab & Haryana High Court
Subject News *  Sales-tax concession cannot be denied unless government notification is expressly rescinded: Telangana High Court. *  GST appeal delay condoned after portal continued to show case as ‘Pending for order’: Rajasthan High Court. *  Customs duty exemption can’t be denied without test report to support reclassification: CESTAT. *  Recovery can’t continue during pending GST appeal: Punjab & Haryana High Court directs ITC unblocking after statutory pre-deposit. *  Revenue neutrality must be proven with evidence, not assumptions: Madras High Court restores Rs. 20.37 crore Excise demand. *  GST limitation applies to issuance of assessment order, not its service: Calcutta High Court. *  Time barred SCN can’t sustain service tax demand against sub-contractor: CESTAT. *  Absence of mandatory approval in GST sec. 74 adjudication, Karnataka High Court restrained dept. from coercive action. *  GST registration cancellation: Karnataka High court holds appeal u/s 107 is proper remedy *  Service tax tecovery from deceased proprietor’s widow quashed: Chhattisgarh High Court *  No coercive GST recovery against former partner till appeal is decided: Himachal Pradesh High Court. *  GST appeal barred by limitation, Rajasthan HC allows delayed appeal where delay was beyond taxpayer’s control. *  GST on diagnostic services must first be decided by AAR, not High Court: Delhi HC *  Interim relief granted against GST demand on RIICO land conversion premium: Rajasthan High Court *  Printing manufacturer’s name on packaging for statutory compliance is not branding, GST exemption can’t be denied: GSTAT *  Overseas marketing & support services are export of services, not intermediary services: CESTAT. *  Duty paid through CENVAT credit can’t be demanded again in cash: CESTAT *  Input service benefits can’t be denied: CESTAT allows export refund despite MMTC acting as Canalising agency. *  No service tax demand without proof of service of SCN: CESTAT. *  Service tax demand quashed as dept. fails to prove service of SCN: CESTAT *  GST : Mere allegation of inadequate consideration of reply not enough to invoke writ jurisdiction: Delhi High Court *  Onerous conditions imposed for provisional release of seized imported goods shouldn’t amount to virtual denial of relief: CESTAT. *  GST SCN without alleging fraud cannot invoke sec. 74: Karnataka High Court quashes adjudication order. *  Extended Limitation Can’t Be Invoked Merely on Form 26AS Data: CESTAT *  Revenue-Sharing with Restaurants Not Taxable as Business Support Service: CESTAT *  R. 6(3) Option Can’t Be Forced on Taxpayer; CESTAT Quashes Rs. 12.36 Crore CENVAT Credit Demand *  Excise Duty | Power Consumption Alone Can’t Prove Clandestine Manufacture: Karnataka High Court *  Madras High Court Examines DGGI’s Authority to Issue GST Penalty Orders Under Section 122, Adds DGGI as Party *  Proceedings under omitted r. 96(10) can’t survive without saving clause: andhra pradesh high court quashes gst refund recovery *  Excise duty power consumption alone can’t prove clandestine manufacture: karnataka high court  

Comments

Print   |    |  Comment

PJ/Case Laws/2012-13/1264

The custom duty prevalent on the date of order of permitting clearance will be payable.
 
 

Case:-COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, CUSTOMS AND SERVICE TAX-BBSR-I V/S KASHVI POWER AND STEEL P LTD
 
Citation: - 2012-TIOL-1277-CESTAT-KOL
 
Brief Facts:- The present appeal was filed by the appellant-revenue for seeking stay for the operation of Order-in-Appeal No. 01-02/Cus/BBSR-I/2012 dated 17.0.1.2012, whereby the ld. Commissioner (Appeals) has upheld the refund of export duty paid by the respondent-assessee.
 
Appellant’s contention:-  The appellant-revenue contended that the let export was on 25.2.2011 and the goods were not loaded in the vessel. They submit that the rate of export duty was enhanced from 5% to 20%. The contention is that consequent upon this change of rate of duty, shipping bill was reassessed to duty and the duty was paid by the respondent. Further their contention is that Section 16 of Customs Act, 1962 provides that the relevant date of determination of rate of duty for export is loading of goods. Section 26 of the Customs Act, 1962, provides for grant of refund of export duty and the provision has not been complied with in this case. Therefore, the respondents are not entitled for refund of the export duty. They relies on the Tribunal's decision in the case of Gujarat Co-op. Milk Marketing Federation Ltd. V/s. CC, Ahmedabad reported in 2007 (220) ELT 914 (Tri.-Ahmd.) = (2007-TIOL-1625-CESTAT-AHM). They contended that the issue relating to unjust enrichment has also not been examined in this case.
 
Respondent’s Contention:-The respondent submit that the order permitting clearance and loading of the goods was dated 25.2.2011 and the rate of duty applicable on that date was 5% and they were directed by the Department to pay duty enhanced w.e.f. 1.3.2011, which they have paid under protest. They contended that Section 26 of the Customs Act, 1962 is not applicable in their case, since it is not a case for return or re-import of the goods. Further Section 27 of the Customs Act, 1962, does not make any distinction for refund in case of export or import. It was further submitted that let export was given on 25.2.2011 and they have accordingly paid the duty applicable on the said date. In support of their contention, they placed reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Prima Mineral Exports Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Union of India - 2010 (257) ELT 414 (Bom.) wherein it was held that Let Export Order is made for unloading of the goods for exportation in accordance with law under Section 51 of the said Act.
 
Reasoning of Judgment: - The Hon’ble CESTAT held that as per Section 16 of the Customs Act, 1962, the rate of duty applicable shall be with reference to the date on which proper officer makes order permitting clearance and loading of the goods for exportation in accordance with Section 51 of the said Act. Undisputedly, the order was given on 25.2.11 under Section 16 of the Customs Act, 1962. The Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Prima Mineral Exports Pvt. Ltd. has taken a similar view. In these circumstances, they do not find any merit in the stay application filed by the Revenue.
 
 
Decision: - stay not granted.

Comment:- This decision has clearly underlined the rule that custom duty is payable on rate applicable on the date of order of clearance by custom authorities and not on the date of receipt of goods or on the date of filing of Bill of entry.
 
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