News Update

Govt appoints Vinay Kumar as New Ambassador to MoscowIsrael has weaponised starvation as method of war - It’s a war crime, says UNCus - s.129E - If the statute gives a right to appeal upon certain conditions, it is upon fulfilment of those conditions that the right becomes vested and exercisable to the appellant: HCGST - Issues relating to huge economic offence of stealthily procuring raw materials, clandestine manufacturing and fraudulent supply of filter cigarettes - Petitioner should have availed alternate efficacious remedy: HCGST - Where an adverse decision is contemplated, it is mandatory for the authority concerned to afford opportunity of personal hearing even if not sought: HCUS-UK coalition airstrikes at Houthis in Red Sea portGST - Since there has been a delay of one year in taking up the appeal, appellate authority could have granted one more opportunity by issuing a fresh notice of hearing: HCPMK joins NDA; to share dais with PM at SalemGST - s.83 - Extension - Mere noting in the file of the officer concerned cannot constitute an order - It cannot be considered as a fresh order u/s 83(1): HCGST - Attachment of bank account - Provisions of s.83 are to be r/w s.122(1-A) - Maharashtra GST Authorities have the jurisdiction to resort to provisions of s.83 with respect to Petitioner located in Chennai: HCEinstein’s brain was stolen by Princeton Hospital pathologist & cut into 240 pieces to study tissues, reports National GeographicCBDT explains what is 'tax effect' for purpose of filing appeal in cases beyond monetary limitsUK begins hunt for sunken ship loaded with gold worth 4 bn poundsPrivacy at Stake: Evaluating Data Principal Rights in the DPDP Act 2023Delhi regains its title as world’s most polluted cityLitigation Management: CBDT revises instructions and monetary limits prescribed for filing appeal or SLP before courtsUnsettled borders and rise of China major challenges for defence forces, says Chief Anil ChauhanAmerican IRS Chief expects workforce to surpass one-lakh-mark in next 3 yrsFood scarcity: Gaza heading for mass deathsCBDT directs income tax field offices to remain open on March 29, 30 & 31st
 
CX - Expression in statute cannot be allowed to be circumscribed on an unfounded interpretation by lower authorities: CESTAT

 

By TIOL News Service

MUMBAI, MAY 24, 2018: THE appellant supplies transformers on short-term basis to their customers who may send back the purchased goods for reconditioning and repair and are thereafter removed under cover of excise invoices issued as per rule 11 of CER, 2002. On return of goods, the duty liability discharged at the time of clearance is taken as CENVAT credit.

The jurisdictional authorities have objected to this credit availment and accordingly CENVAT credit of Rs.3,28,369/- was denied and equivalent penalty has been imposed on the appellant for the period from December 2006 to May 2009.

The Commissioner(A) found nothing amiss in this order.

While upholding the order-in-original he observed –

'The wordings used in rule 16 of Central Excise Rules, 2002 "for any other reason" cannot be stretched to defeat the very purpose of intention of the said Rule. The said rule is a enabling provision to receive the goods, for repair purpose. Whereas in the present case goods are being received after temporary use by their clients and the same is not covered under rule 16 of Central Excise Rules, 2002.'

The appellant is before the CESTAT.

The Bench noted that the finding to the detriment of the appellant is based on presumption that 'appellant has twisted rule 16 to suit his convenience' and that these transformers returned from customers are not inputs or goods brought for repair or reconditioning and, hence, not eligible for availment of CENVAT credit.

The CESTAT considered the submissions and observed -

+ A wrong construction has been placed on the object and intention of rule 16 of CER, 2002.

+ It is not the intention of the statute that goods once taxed should be subject to repeated duty liability on every incident of removal. It is to provide a mechanism for such removal without repeating the duty burden that rule 16 of Central Excise Rules, 2002 carves a separate facility of adjustment of duty that is levied in the first instance.

+ Rule 16 is of such latitude that it covers, besides repairs and reconditioning, any other purpose. The expression in the statute cannot be allowed to be circumscribed on an unfounded interpretation by lower authorities to restrict this latitude.

Concluding that the findings of the lower appellate authority is not based on law, the order was set aside and the appeal was allowed.

(See 2018-TIOL-1608-CESTAT-MUM)


POST YOUR COMMENTS
   

TIOL Tube Latest

Shri Shailendra Kumar, Trustee, TIOL Trust, giving welcome speech at TIOL Awards 2023




Shri M C Joshi, Former Chairman, CBDT




Address by Shri Buggana Rajendranath, Hon'ble Finance Minister of Andhra Pradesh at TIOL Awards 2023