Chartered Accountant
Bookmark and Share
click here to subscribe our newsletter
 
 
Corporate News *  The GSTN has issued an Advisory dated 21.04.2026 about the introduction of an Offline Tool for the Invoice Management System (IMS)  *  CBIC extends due dates for filing of FORM GSTR 3B  for the month of April 2026 *  Interest cannot be imposed in adjudication order, if not demanded/quantified in show cause notice : Allahabad HC *  Wheelchairs with toileting facility eligible for exemption: CESTAT affirms customs duty exemption to importer *  Industries urge GST council to allow inverted duty refunds on input services *  Tamil Nadu GST dept introduced virtual hearing facility for GST appeals under under section 107 of the TNGST act: detailed guidelines  *  CIC urges authorities to implement GST evasion complaint tracking system *  Even if the assessee opts "NO" for personal hearing in form DRC-06 ,The mandatory requirement under section 75(4) to grant opportunity of hearing cannot be waived:Gujarat High Court  *  Glufosinate imports curbs imposed by govt *  Government extends Re-import period for exported cut & polished diamonds *  CIC flags lack of tracking system for tax evasion complaints,urges GST authorities to improve transparency *  No Custodial Interrogation needed in GST fraud case based on documentary evidence already in Department's Possession : Chattisgarh HC *  Orders under section cannot be sustained if passed without considering the taxpayer's objections and without granting a personal hearing:Gujarat High Court *  Mere cancellation of supplier's registration cannot,by itself,justify denial of ITC or cancellation of the recipient's registration:Bombay High Court *  High Court sets aside GST notice citing factual errors and natural justice violations *  Provisional Bank Attachment under Section. 110 of Customs Act Unsustainable Beyond Statutory period without Extension order: Bombay HC orders to defreeze accounts *  Post Clearance MRP Alteration by Distributor Does not attract Differential Customs Duty: CESTAT *  DGFT Expands scope of 'Screws' classification under RoDTEP Scheme  *  E-way bills surze to all time high of 140.6 million in March *  GST Exemption Allowed on Pure Labour Services for Standalone Houses: AAR  *  GST Payable Only on Margin in Second-Hand Car Sales, Subject to Strict Conditions and No ITC Claim: AAR *  DGFT rolls out procedure for allocation of calcined coke *  GST portal update : Pre-deposit amount now editable in Appeals *  J&K HC declared TMT scrap a 'Specified Good' eligibile for GST refunds under Support Scheme  *  Pigmy agents are employees of banks; no GST can be levied on commission  paid to them : Karnataka HC *  DGFT Revises HS Code Description for Screws Under RoDTEP *  GST Registration Cancellation Invalid Without Proper Service of Notice: Allahabad High Court. *  Bengaluru CGST | GST Backlog Appeals Deadline Fixed at June 30, 2026 *  No Time Bar on Refund of Service Tax for Services Not Rendered: CESTAT  Remands Indiabulls Case for Unjust Enrichment Check. *  Supreme Court Holds Renewable Energy Incentive Must Benefit Generators, Not Be Adjusted in Tariff
Subject News *   Delhi HC Quashes Order, Says Reminder Cannot Validate Improperly Served GST SCN *  KARNATAKA HIGH COURT REMANDS GST SHORTFALL MATTER DUE TO ABSENCE OF PERSONAL HEARING   *  CESTAT cancels confiscation and penalties on imported computer cabinet cases: Custom duty restricted to 111 surplus units *  Deposit of tax during search or investigation cannot be treated as 'Voluntary Payment' : Bombay High Court *  Section 76 of the CGST cannot be invoked where the tax has already been duly deposited, even if through another registration of the same entity: Madras High Court *  Sec 74 allows use of material regardless of source; illegality or flaws in section 67 search do not vitiate valid adjudication: HC *  Inter-State transfer of ITC on Amalgamation permissible as given under section 18(3) read with rule 41 of the CGST rules, 2017: Gujarat High Court *  HC: No GST on commisson paid to Pigmy Agents *  IGST refund denial on illegible bill of lading invalid absent chance to furnish docs; merit reconsideration in appeals directed: HC *  ITC is not admissible on GST paid on leasehold rights of land used fpr setting up an air seperation plant: AAAR,Tamil Nadu *  GST: No penalty under Section 74 after voluntary ITC reversal due to non-existent supplier : High Court *  TN AAAR denies GST ITC on Land Lease under Sec. 17(5)(d) for setting up plant and machinery *  GST proceedings quashed as notices sent to old address, despite updated address in registration *  Importer Can’t Be Penalised for Alleged IGCR Procedural Lapses Without Evidence of Departmental Error: CESTAT *  Structured Healthcare Training Not ‘Charitable Activity’, 18% GST Payable: AAR  *  CESTAT As The Appellate Authority For Central Sales Tax Disputes: A Paradigm Shift Under Finance Act, 2023 *   Rs. 25K Cost Imposed On SGST Joint Commissioner for Attaching Bank  Accounts Without Forming Mandatory “Opinion”: Bombay HC *   Ex-Parte GST Order Without Hearing Violates Natural Justice: Karnataka  High Court Quashes Adjudication and Bank Attachment.  *   Retrospective GST Cancellation Can’t Invalidate Genuine Transactions:  Jaipur Commissioner (Appeals) Quashes Rs. 95,670 ITC Demand. *   GST Pre-Deposit Non-Compliance: Allahabad High Court Allows Appeal  Subject to Rs. 30 Lakh Balance Deposit, Recognises Offline Filing. *  Documentary Nature of Evidence: Allahabad High Court Grants Bail in Rs. 32.66 Crore Fake ITC Fraud Case *  Supreme Court Flags Systemic Bias in Army’s Permanent Commission Process for Women Officers *  Re-Determination of Land Compensation Can Be Based on Appellate Court Awards, Clarifies Scope of S. 28-A: Supreme Court. *  Supreme Court Imposes Rs. 5 Lakh Costs On Rent Authority Officer For Acting Beyond Jurisdiction. *  DGGI Meerut | Court Denies Bail to Accused in Claiming Fake ITC And Export Refunds *  Denial of GST Rate Revision Benefit to Contractor Violates Article 14: Rajasthan HC *  GST Registration Cancellation for Non-Filing of Returns: Gauhati High Court Directs Restoration on Compliance. *   Supreme Court Quashes FEMA Adjudication Orders, Revives Proceedings at  Show Cause Stage. *   Higher Rank, Harsher Punishment Justified: Supreme Court Restores Dismissal  of Bank Manager in Misappropriation Case. *   Limitation for Export Refund to Be Counted from Foreign Exchange Realisation,  Not From Export Invoices Issuance: CESTAT  

Comments

Print   |    |  Comment

PJ/CASE STUDY/2009-10/033
08 March 2010

 

Case Study

Prepared by:

CA Pradeep Jain

And Megha Jain

 

Introduction: -

 

The duty is not payable on exempted goods. But if an assessee has charged duty on exempted goods then the same is recoverable under Section 11D of Central Excise Act. Now, the question in the instant case is whether the duty is payable in cash only or whether the duty can be paid from Cenvat credit available with the manufacturer. The other question arose in that case is that whether the appellate authority can go beyond the show cause notice.

 

Relevant Legal Provisions:-

 

Section 11D of the Central Excise Act, 1944 - Duties of excise collected from the buyer to be deposited with the Central Government

 

(1) Notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in any order or direction of the Appellate Tribunal or any Court or in any other provision of this Act or the rules made thereunder, [every person who is liable to pay duty under this Act or the rules made thereunder, and has collected any amount in excess of duty assessed or determined and paid on any excisable goods under this Act or the rules made thereunder from the buyer of such goods] in any manner as representing duty of excise, shall forthwith pay the amount so collected to the credit of the Central Government.

 [(1A) Every person, who has collected any amount in excess of the duty assessed or determined and paid on any excisable goods or has collected any amount as representing duty of excise on any excisable goods which are wholly exempt or are chargeable to nil rate of duty from any person in any manner, shall forthwith pay the amount so collected to the credit of the Central 30 Government.]

 [(2) Where any amount is required to be paid to the credit of the Central Government under [sub-section (1) or sub-section (1A), as the case may be,] Old[ sub-section (1)] and which has not been so paid, the Central Excise Officer may serve on the person liable to pay such amount, a notice requiring him to show cause why the said amount, as specified in the notice, should not be paid by him to the credit of the Central Government.

(3) The Central Excise Officer shall, after considering the representation, if any, made by the person on whom the notice is served under sub-section (2), determine the amount due from such person (not being in excess of the amount specified in the notice) and thereupon such person shall pay the amount so determined.

(4) The amount paid to the credit of the Central Government under [sub-section (1) or sub-section (1A) or sub-section (3), as the case may be,] Old[ sub-section (1) or sub-section (3)] shall be adjusted against the duty of excise payable by the person on finalisation of assessment or any other proceeding for determination of the duty of excise relating to the excisable goods referred to in [sub-section (1) and sub-section (1A)] Old[sub-section (1)].

(5) Where any surplus is left after such adjustment under sub-section (4), the amount of such surplus shall either be credited to the Fund or, as the case may be, refunded to the person who has borne the incidence of such amount, in accordance with the provisions of section 11B and such person may make an application under that Section in such cases within six months from the date of the public notice to be issued by the Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise for refund of such surplus amount.]

Section 11D of the Central Excise Act, 1944 - Interest on the amounts collected in excess of duty

(1) Where an amount has been collected in excess of the duty assessed or determined and paid on any excisable goods under this Act or the rules made thereunder from the [buyer of such goods or from any person or where a person has collected any amount as representing duty of excise on any excisable goods which are wholly exempt or are chargeable to nil rate of duty, the person] Old[buyer of such goods, the person] who is liable to ay such amount as determined under sub-section (3) of section 11D, shall, in addition to the amount, be liable to pay interest at such rate not below ten percent and not exceeding thirty-six per cent per annum, as is for the time being fixed by the Central Government, by notification in the Official Gazette, from the first day of the month succeeding the month in which the amount ought to have been paid under this Act, but for the provisions contained in sub-section (3) of section 11D, till the date of payment of such amount:

Provided that in such cases where the amount becomes payable consequent to issue of an order, instruction or direction by the Board under section 37B, and such amount payable is voluntarily paid in full, without reserving any right to appeal against such payment at any subsequent stage, within forty-five days from the date of issue of such order, instruction or direction, as the case may be, no interest shall be payable and in other cases the interest shall be payable on the whole amount, including the amount already paid.

(2) The provisions of sub-section (1) shall not apply to cases where the amount had become payable or ought to have been paid before the day on which the Finance Bill, 2003 receives the assent of the President.

Explanation 1. - Where the amount determined under sub-section (3) of section 11D is reduced by the Commissioner (Appeals), the Appellate Tribunal or, as the case may be, the court, the interest payable thereon under sub-section (1) shall be on such reduced amount.

Explanation 2. - Where the amount determined under sub-section (3) of section 11D is increased by the Commissioner (Appeals), the Appellate Tribunal or, as the case may be, the court, the interest payable thereon under sub-section (1) shall be on such increased amount.]

Unison Metals Ltd. v/s CCE, Ahmedabad

[Final Order No. A/94/WZB/AHD/2010, dated 25.01.2010]

 

Brief Facts of the Case: -

 

¨              The appellants are engaged in the manufacture of Steel Patta Patti and they clear the same on the payment of duty. They were also clearing steel scrap which is exempted from payment of duty under Notification No. 3/2005-CE, dated 24.02.2005.

 

¨              Since the appellants were not maintaining separate account in respect of inputs used in the manufacture of dutiable and exempted goods, appellants were required to pay 10% of the value as per the provisions of Rule 6 (3) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004.

 

¨              Instead of paying 10%, the appellants were paying duty at the rate 16% from the cenvat credit. The Department informed them that the procedure followed by them was wrong and the duty was recoverable in cash under the provisions of Section 11D of the CEA, 1944.

 

¨              A show cause notice was issued to the assessee requiring the appellants to show cause as to why the amount of Rs. 1, 13,092/- should not be recovered from them in cash under Section 11D of CEA, 1944 and the interest as applicable u/s 11DD of CEA, 1944.

 

¨              The original Adjudicating Authority confirmed the demand and imposed penalty of equal amount demanded. He maintained that the amount is paid on exempted goods which were not payable. Hence, the appellant cannot pay the same from Cenvat account and the same is recoverable in cash under Section 11D of Central Excise Act.

 

¨              In appeal filled by the appellant, the Commissioner (A) held that appellant were required to reverse the cenvat credit @ 10% from Cenvat credit as per Rule 6 of Cenvat credit rules. They need not to pay the duty in cash. As such, they could pay 10% by reversing the Cenvat credit but the balance amount is to be paid in cash. This is due to the fact that they are recovered the same amount from the customer.

 

¨              Accordingly, the appellant have filed further appeal against the impugned order before the Tribunal. The department has also filed the appeal against the order which is going against them.

 

 

Appellant’s Contention: -

 

The appellant have contended that the Commissioner (A) has traveled beyond the scope of the Show cause notice. The proposal in the SCN was to recover the amount under Section 11D of the CEA, 1944 and there was no proposal to recover a portion in cash and partly from Cenvat credit account.

 

With regard to recovery under Section 11D as proposed in the show cause notice and confirmed by the Original Authority, the appellant have relied upon the decision of the Tribunal in the case of the Shivam Metals vs. CCE, Jaipur [2009 (235) ELT 81 (Tri.-Del.)] wherein it was held that since the appellants paid the duty recovered by them to the Government, the provisions of Section 11D were not attracted. The appellant submitted that this is totally identical issue and the final product in case cited above and that of appellant are identical. Even the facts and circumstances of the case is also same. As such, the same case is applicable and relief should be granted to them.

 

The appellant has also relied upon the Board Circular No 651/42/2002-CX, dated 07.08.2002 which says that the duty under Section 11D is payable from Cenvat account. Moreover, the appellant submitted that when the duty is already paid from Cenvat account and as such the provisions of Section 11D are not attracted in the instant case.

 

The appellant had also relied upon the judgments given in the cases of Shiva Steels v/s CCE, Jaipur [2008 (228) ELT 157 (Tri-Del)], Viral Control Pvt Ltd v/s Commissioner of C. Ex., Ahmd [2009 (235) ELT 681 (Tri-Ahmd)], Sterlite Industries (India) Ltd v/s Commissioner of C. Ex., Vapi [2008 (225) ELT 397 (Tri-Ahmd)].

 

Reasoning of the Judgement: -

 

The Tribunal considered the judgment given in the case of Shivam Metals and agreed with the contention of the appellant that the facts in this case were similar and therefore the said decision was squarely applicable to the present case.

 

With regard to the decision of the Commissioner (A), the Tribunal held that there was no legal provision to require the manufacture to pay duty from PLA only and there is no such provision under Rule 6 of the Cenvat Credit Rules.  

 

In the absence of specific legal provisions and also in view of the fact that there was no proposal in the SCN to require the appellant to pay a portion from PLA, the impugned order cannot be sustained and was therefore set aside.

 

Decision of the Tribunal

 

Appeal allowed with consequential relief.

 

Comments & Conclusion: -

 

Thus, the duty paid from the cenvat credit also amounts to payment of duty and the provisions of Section 11D cannot be made applicable for recovering the duty in cash.

 

This decision is very positive decision for the assessees who have paid the duty from cenvat credit under bona fide belief that duty was payable from cenvat credit. Moreover, the provision has also changed and section 5A has been amended and now it is mandatory on the manufacturer to avail the exemption.

 

******

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