News Update

ISRO study reveals possibility of water ice in polar cratersBiden says migration has been good for US economyUS says NO to Rafah operation unless humanitarian plan is in place + Colombia snaps off ties with IsraelMay Day protests in Paris & Istanbul; hundreds arrestedSaudi fitness instructor jailed for social media post - Amnesty International seeks releaseDelhi HC orders DGCA to deregister GO First’s aircraftIndia successfully tests SMART anti-submarine missile-assisted torpedo systemKiller heatwave kills hundreds of thousands of fish in Southern VietnamHong Kong struck by close to 1000 lightningColumbia Univ campus turns into ‘American Gaza’ - Pro-Palestinian students & counter-protesters clashViksit Bharat @2047: Taxes form the BedrockGST - April month collections go past Rs 2 lakh crore threshold - peak to Rs 2.1 lakh croreCX - Alleged clandestine removal - Not replying to SCN on the ground that letter is not furnished by department is only a ruse as reliance is not placed on the same by the respondent authority for adjudicating the SCNs: SCGST - Proper officer observes that the reply filed is not satisfactory and since the assessee has nothing more to say, demand is confirmed - Officer has not applied his mind - Matter remitted: HCGST - Petitioner had no opportunity to even object to the retrospective cancellation of registration - Petitioner does not seek to continue his business and has sought cancellation of registration - Order modified accordingly: HCGST - Seizing the outward movement of funds from petitioner's bank account - Life of an order of provisional attachment u/s 83(2) is only one year - HDFC Bank, henceforth, cannot restrain operation of bank account: HCTax - on Death and ContemplationDelhi, Noida schools receive bomb threats; Children sent back homeI-T- Writ court is not required to interfere with assessment order, where assessee also has available option of statutory appeal: HCED seizes Rs 90 Cr stored in crypto in Gaming App scamI-T-Transfer of assessment is sustained, where assessee does not reply to any notice issued in this regard & where valid reasons exist for transferring assessment: HCHM appeals Naxalism will be erased in 2 yrs if Modi voted back to powerAmerica softens offence related to use of marijuanaI-T - Rule 11UA does not mentions pre-condition of approval of balance sheet by Annual General Meeting: ITATAfter US & UK India comes third in terms of 79 mn cyber attacks in 2023: StudyCBIC revises tariff value of gold, silver & edible oils
 
CX - Rule 6 of CCR cannot be invoked to demand CENVAT in respect of motors, generator, engine, remnant oil arising during breaking up of ship by alleging that sale of the same is trading activity: CESTAT

 

By TIOL News Service

MUMBAI, AUG 25, 2018: IN this appeal, the facts are that the respondents (ship breaking company) were availing credit of tax paid on input services and the same was utilised for discharge of CE duty on dutiable goods manufactured.

Revenue alleged that the sale of motors, generator, engine, remnant oil etc. amounted to trading activity and, therefore, the respondent ought to have reversed CENVAT credit in terms of rule 6 of the CCR

The respondents argued that the items viz. motors, generator, engine, remnant oil etc. are not purchased by them but recovered during the breaking up of the ship and, therefore, it cannot be said that they are engaged in trading activity.

The Commissioner(A) accepted their contention and aggrieved Revenue took their case to the CESTAT.

The Bench considered the submissions and observed -

"3. It is seen that what the appellants are purchasing is a ship for the purpose of breaking. The appellants are breaking the ship and as a result certain items are recovered. The scrap so generated is sold by appellants on payment of central excise duty. Other items generated are sold by them as it is. The items in respect of which demands for revenue under Rule 6 of Cenvat Credit Rules have been made are not purchased by appellants but are part of the ship when it is imported. In this regard, the activity of the appellants cannot be considered as trading activity."

The Single Member Bench, therefore, held that the notice could not be sustained.

Nonetheless, while concluding the order, the Bench remarked that the "appeal was allowed".

We had while reporting the order - 2017-TIOL-3608-CESTAT-MUM pointed out that this was not what it ought to be.

Thankfully, the error has been rectified by issuance of a corrigendum which reads - in Para 4, the words:

"In view of the above, notice cannot be sustained and the appeal is consequently allowed."

be read as

"In view of the above, notice cannot be sustained and the appeal is consequently dismissed".

In passing:

All good things must come to an end - an old Proverb.

(See 2018-TIOL-2614-CESTAT-MUM)


POST YOUR COMMENTS
   

TIOL Tube Latest

Shri N K Singh, recipient of TIOL FISCAL HERITAGE AWARD 2023, delivering his acceptance speech at Fiscal Awards event held on April 6, 2024 at Taj Mahal Hotel, New Delhi.


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