SIGN IN SUBSCRIBE

News Update

PM-STIAC discusses accelerating Industry-Academia Partnership for Research and InnovationIndia, Singapore hold dialogue over cyber policy44 bids received under 10th Round of Commercial Coal Mine AuctionsCops arrest former Dy PM of Nepal in cooperative fraud casePuri highlights India's Petrochemical potential at India Chem 2024UN reports record high cocaine production in ColombiaMinister unveils 'Aviation Park' showcasing India's Aviation HeritageED finds PFI wanted to start Islamic movement in IndiaBlocking Credit - Rule 86ASEBI says investors can use 3-in-1 accounts to apply online for securitiesI-T- Penalty u/s 271(1)(b) need not be imposed when assessee moved an adjournment application & later complied with notice u/s 142(1): ITAT4 Kanwariyas killed as vehicle runs over them in Banka, BiharI-T- Accounting principles do not prescribe maintaining of a day-to-day stock register, and the books of accounts cannot be rejected on this basis alone: ITATUN food looted and diverted to army in EthiopiaCus - Alleged breach of conditions for operating public bonded warehouse; CESTAT rightly rejected allegations, having found no evidence of any such breach: HCUS budget deficit surges beyond USD 1.8 trillionST - Onus for proving admissibility of Cenvat Credit rests with service provider under Rule 9(6) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004: CESTATIf China goes into Taiwan, Trump promises to impose additional tariffsRussians love Indian films; Putin lauds BollywoodCus - Classification of goods is to be determined in accordance with Customs Tariff Act & General Interpretative Rules; Country-of-Origin Certificate may offer some guidance, but cannot solely dictate classification: CESTATCus - Benefit of such Country-of-Origin certificates cannot be denied if all relevant conditions are met under the applicable Customs Tariff rules: CESTATCuban power grid collapses; Country plunges into darknessCus - As per trite law, merely claiming a classification or exemption does not constitute mis-declaration or suppression - any misclassification does not equate to willful intent to evade duty: CESTATKarnataka mulling over 2% fee on aggregator platforms to bankroll gig worker welfare fundCus - Extended limitation cannot be invoked in case of assessee who is a regular importer with a consistent classification approach: CESTAT
 
Credit availed on inputs cleared to job worker and credit also availed on processed goods returned by job worker on payment of duty - No double benefit: High Court

By TIOL News Service

 

CHENNAI, SEPT 21, 2015: THE respondents availed credit on inputs, namely, 'plastic components' and cleared them to their job worker for painting, under challans in terms of Notification No.214/86 dated 25.03.1986. The job worker returned the inputs after painting, on payment of duty under invoices, instead of returning the goods under a challan specified under the notification. The appellants took credit on the 'plastic components' cleared by them as well as on the processed inputs, which was objected to by the department on the ground that credit had been availed twice. The assessee got a favourable order in Tribunal. So, revenue is in appeal before the High Court.

After hearing both sides, the High Court held:

What happened in this case was that the first respondent/assessee handed over plastic materials during the period from July 2006 to December 2006 to a Company by name Nypro Forbes Products Private Limited for carrying out certain job works. The goods were handed over after availing credit for inputs, but, not actually paying duty. The Company which undertook the job work, while returning the goods, after carrying out the job work, raised invoices, for amounts including the duty that they paid. Even according to the Department, the job worker was not liable to make payment of duty. But, since the duty was paid by the job worker and also claimed from the first respondent/assessee, the first respondent/assessee claimed credit.

But, the Department went on a wrong presumption that credit had been claimed twice by the first respondent. As a matter of fact, the assessee did not claim credit twice over. At the time when the goods were supplied, they availed the credit. After the Company which undertook the job work, had paid the duty, even according to the Department, the job worker was not liable to pay it. The original authority and the appellate authority wrongly construed the same as a double benefit by applying the theory of unjust enrichment. This is what was rectified by the Tribunal. Hence, the order of the Tribunal is in accordance with law. Therefore, the question of law is answered in favour of the assessee.

(See 2015-TIOL-2192-HC-MAD-CX)

 


POST YOUR COMMENTS
   

TIOL Tube Latest

TIOL Tube
Shri Samrat Choudhary, Hon’ble Deputy CM & FM of State of Bihar, delivering inaugural speech at TIOL Tax Congress 2024.

TOP NEWS


AR not Afar by SK Rahman

VISION 360



Justice A K Patnaik, Mentor to Hon'ble Jury for TIOL Awards 2024, addressing the gathering at the event.

TII LATEST

TIOLCORPLAWS LATEST