SIGN IN SUBSCRIBE

News Update

India, ADB sign USD170 mn loan to strengthen pandemic preparedness and responseCus - Export of non-basmati rice - Notification 20/2023 insofar as it denies the benefit of the transitional arrangement as contained in para-1.05 of the FTP 2023, is bad in law: HCHealth Ministry issues Advisory to States in view of Zika virus cases from MaharashtraCus - Refund of SAD - 102/2007-Cus - Areca Nut and Supari are one and the same - Objections with regard to name, nature and status of importer or buyers or the end use of goods purchased by them etc. are extraneous: HCExpert Committee on Climate Finance submits Report on transition finance to IFSCACX - Interest on Refund - Since wrong order annexed by petitioner in paper book, Bench is unable to proceed further - Petition is dismissed with liberty to file a fresh one: HCWIPO data shows Chinese inventors filing highest number of AI patentsGST - No E-way bill - When petitioner imports machinery and after Customs clearance, transports same to his own factory, it cannot be said that such a transportation would fall within the definition of term 'supply' - Penalty imposable under second limb of s.129(1)(a): HCGST - Fix responsibility on officers who allowed BG to lapse - Petitioner not justified in not renewing BG - Cost of Rs.15 lacs imposed, to be paid to PM Cares Fund: HCManish Sisodia’s judicial custody further extendedGST - Since the parties agree that petition can be disposed of on the basis of records available before Appellate Authority, petitioner is directed to enclose all documents filed before Appellate Authority in a compilation, in form of a paper book: HCWrong RoadST - Whether any service is used for personal consumption or not is certainly question of fact and being question of fact, no substantial question of law arises: HCGovt proposes to amend Geographical Indication of Goods Rules; Draft issued for feedbackST - If what has been paid as tax is without authority of law, Revenue should refund the same - Denial of credit would result in the whole exercise being tax neutral: HCWarehousing Authority notifies several agri goods to be stored in only registered warehousesST - Even if the petitioner may have a case on merits, it is best left to be decided by the Appellate Authority under the hierarchy prescribed under the FA, 1994: HCUS FDA okays Eli Lilly Alzheimer’s drugGST - Petitioner challenges jurisdiction of assessing officer - Petitioner is entitled to file an appeal u/s 107 by availing an alternate efficacious remedy: HCFive from Telangana killed in car accident on Pune-Solapur HighwayGST - Existence of an alternative remedy is a material consideration but not a bar to the exercise of jurisdiction: HCHush money case against Donald Trump - Sentencing deferred to Sept 18GST - It is open to a trader to take goods by whichever route he opts, unless the law otherwise requires, destination point being intact: HCDeadly hurricane Beryl smashes properties in JamaicaIsrael claims 900 militants killed in Rafah since May monthGST - Order expressly records that personal hearing notice was returned with endorsement 'no such person at address' - Since petitioner has shifted to a new premises, it is just and necessary to provide an opportunity to contest demand: HC116 die in stampede at UP ’Satsang’I-T- Application for revision of order dismissed in limine on grounds of delay; case remanded for re-consideration: HCWe are deepening economic ties with India, says US official8 Dutch engineers build world’s longest bicycle - 180 feet, 11 inchesRailways earns Rs 14798 Crore from Freight loading in June monthMoD inks MoU to set up testing facilities in Unmanned Aerial System in TN Defence Industrial CorridorI-T- TDS credit can be allowed based on AIS, where details pertaining to TDS, advance tax & other payments are reflected in Form 26AS: ITATVaishnaw to inaugurate Global IndiaAI Summit 2024
 
Is CENVAT credit on transit sale allowed only if made through Registered dealer?

APRIL 14, 2015

By Chirayu Kothi, Advocate

THE Budget notification 8/2015-CE(NT) dated 01.03.2015, inter alia, inserted the following third proviso in sub-rule 2 of rule 11 of CER, 2002.

Provided also that if the goods are directly sent to any person on the direction of the registered dealer, the invoice shall also contain the details of the registered dealer as the buyer and the person as the consignee, and that person shall take CENVAT credit on the basis of the registered dealer's invoice:

This proviso is giving many sleepless nights to manufacturers and dealers alike. The question troubling them is as to how this proviso is to be interpreted while reading the same with the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004, rule 9 in particular.

Consider this - The manufacturers procure their raw materials from various sources - directly from the suppliers' factory or through a dealer, registered or otherwise, or any other person engaged in trading of the such goods.

Earlier, in case of a transaction entered with an unregistered dealer, the unregistered dealer issued only a commercial invoice and CENVAT credit was availed on the strength of manufacturers' invoice.

Due to the proviso, reproduced above, added in Rule 11 CER 2002 w.e.f01/03/2015, it seems that if the manufacturer procures raw materials through an unregistered dealer, they will not be entitled to avail CENVAT credit on inputs.

Nonetheless, the fact of the matter is that taking of Cenvat Credit is on basis of manufacturer's invoice and which is a prescribed document mentioned in rule 9(1) of Cenvat Credit Rules 2004 itself.

It seems that the amendment made in the third  proviso  to Rule 11(2) of Central Excise Rules 2002 was only for the purpose of allowing a facility to registered dealer to reduce transport/freight costs, as earlier he was required to bring the goods in his depot/godown before effecting a sale.

But an unintentional interpretation seems to have emerged by this amendment. Inasmuch as the jurisdictional authorities are threatening to deny CENVAT credit availed on the basis of supplier manufacturers' invoices when these goods are directly sent to the assessee manufacturer on the direction of the ‘dealer' on the ground that the said dealer who places such an order is not a "REGISTERED dealer".

It is obvious that in an effort to go along with the ‘Ease of doing business' concept, the Central Government made an amendment to rule 11(2) but what is actually being translated by the field formations is exactly the opposite.

It would be in the fitness of things that the CBEC comes out with a clarificatory Circular at the earliest before SCNs start flying in all directions and makes a mockery of the National Litigation Policy which aims at reducing litigation.

( DISCLAIMER : The views expressed are strictly of the author and Taxindiaonline.com doesn't necessarily subscribe to the same. Taxindiaonline.com Pvt. Ltd. is not responsible or liable for any loss or damage caused to anyone due to any interpretation, error, omission in the articles being hosted on the sites)

 


 RECENT DISCUSSION(S) POST YOUR COMMENTS
   
 
Sub: Good one

Good analysis and a important relevant point is raised. Keep it up.

Posted by Pritam Mahure
 
Sub: Dealer invoice - registration for all

Thanks for highlighting the live burning issue

We have become expert in doubting law makers’ intention to give relief. May be due to our past experience where intention has not been properly worded in rules, notifications etc.

My view is as under

1.It is a beneficial provision given to First Stage & Second Stage Dealers who have to receive goods physically for issuance of CENVATTABLE invoice as of 28.02.2015

2.Rule 9 of CCR speaks about eligible documents for CENVAT credit. In sub-rule (2) of the said rule it has been made mandatory that the document should contain all the particulars as per CER. If we go to Rule 11(2) of CER one can find that ‘consignee’ as mentioned in the eligible document can take credit

3.In addition to the consignee, Government wanted to allow ‘buyer’ also to take credit by sending materials directly to job worker. Hence the newly added second proviso to Rule 11(2) of CER

4.In the same line relaxation has been provided for ‘Registered dealers’ also by incorporating third proviso to Rule 11(2) of CER

5.It is not restricting manufacturers' invoice ineligible for credit or requiring all unregistered dealers to go for registration

I invite learned readers to share their view points

Posted by
G. Mani

Posted by govindan_mani govindan_mani
 
Sub: Ultra vires to the main provision

Hi,

It seems that the last line of insertion (I.e Cenvat Credit to be taken on the basis of such registered dealer invoice) made in Rule 11 is ultra vires to the main Rule.

Rule 11 talks about goods to be removed on the basis of invoice. Sub-Rule (2) prescribes the details to be mentioned in the invoice.

Accordingly, the aforesaid amendment in relation to the basis of taking cenvat credit in Rule 11(2) would be Ultra vires to the main Rule 11(2). The correct place where the said amendment was supposed to be incorporated should be Rule 9 of Cenvat Rules.

Regards,
Satish Bhanushali

Posted by PricewaterHouse Coopers
 
Sub: No registration required for unregistered dealers

My view is that the above amendment has been made so as to tap the irregularities at the hands of first/second stage dealers. That is if the actual customer purchases goods through a registered dealer from a manufacturer then as per the earlier provision, the actual customer could avail credit on the manufacturer's invoice and thereafter the registered dealer could have issued invoice to some other manufacturer for the purpose of passing on fake cenvat credit.

Thus, to avoid passing on of fake cenvat credit, this amendment has been made. And since, the credit cannot be passed on by any unregistered dealer, therefore, the above amendment is not applicable to unregistered dealer.



Posted by Rakshit Verma
 
Sub: 'Bill to Ship to' would continue

Hello,

My view is that the amendment is more clarificatory and beneficial in nature. Post this amendment, the registered dealer would need to issue invoice to enable buyer to avail CENVAT credit.

However, the Bill to Ship to ('BTST') model would continue wherein the consignee (i.e. Ship to party) would be eligible to avail CENVAT credit on the basis of excise invoice issued by the supplier and the intermidiate buyer (i.e. Bill to party) would not be issuing any excise invoice as it is non-registered dealer.

Regards
Amit Jaiswal

Posted by PricewaterHouse Coopers
 « More Discussions »

TIOL Tube Latest

TIOL Tube
India's Path to Becoming a Superpower: An Interview with Pratap Singh

TOP NEWS


AR not Afar by SK Rahman

VISION 360



Shri Ram Nath Kovind, Hon'ble 14th President of India, addressing the gathering at TIOL Special Awards event.

TII LATEST

TIOLCORPLAWS LATEST