Goods and Services Tax

Reliance Cable Industries Versus Commissioner of GST (East) Delhi
Central Excise
2018 (11) TMI 1147 – DELHI HIGH COURT – 2019 (365) E.L.T. 788 (Del.)
DELHI HIGH COURT – HC
Dated:- 14-11-2018
CEAC 45/2018, CM APPL. 35746/2018, CEAC 46/2018, CM APPL. 35747/2018
Central Excise
MR. S. RAVINDRA BHAT AND MR. PRATEEK JALAN JJ.
Mr. Rupesh Kumar, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. Harpreet Singh, Senior Standing Counsel with Ms. Suhani Mathur, Adv. for respondent.
S. RAVINDRA BHAT, J. (ORAL)
1. The question of law sought to be urged by the appellant in these two appeals is whether in regard to the total circumstances of the case, the Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) was justified in rejecting the appeal without appreciating the facts and evidence before it.
2. The brief facts of the case are that on 08.08.2011, search and seizure proceedings were carried out in the appellant's premises. There is no dispute that it manufactures electricity wires

= = = = = = = =

Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source

= = = = = = = =

g electricity consumption bills etc. to say that the activity carried on and the returns filed with the excise authorities did not warrant a finding of clandestine removal or attract a duty liability. It was urged that the bills and invoices seized and the statements made by the raw material suppliers in fact established that duty had been paid and that no liability therefore, could arise.
3. The order-in-original of the Commissioner of Central Excise made on 31.07.2014 analyzed the nature of the evidence as well as the statements recorded – of the appellant as well as his brother and several other individuals, including the raw material suppliers located out of Delhi. The Commissioner was of the opinion that the main buyers from whom sale proceeds were received were M/s. Classik Cable Corporation, M/s. Deepak Electricals, M/s Vimal Electricals, etc. In the event, it was also stated that they were also found that the main suppliers of raw materials were M/s. Taparia Polymers, M/s. Ome

= = = = = = = =

Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source

= = = = = = = =

versal Enterprises, Shahdara to various customers. The firm in the above name was found to be not in existence at the address cited in the invoices. This firm was admitted to be a fake firm as confirmed by Sh. Chittaranjan Pradhan, Supervisor cum Operator of the appellant. Invoices of such fake firm was made use of by the appellant as cover for clandestine clearances made without payment of duty.
(iii) Certain loose papers were recovered at the time of search at the residence of Shri Lalit Jain, Prop. These loose sheets contained the details of various raw material suppliers and the quantum of such raw materials procured by the appellant. The main supplier of copper wire was M/s Balaji Metal, Shahdara, Delhi. Sh. Naresh Gupta, Prop. M/s Balaji Metal confirmed in his statement dated 08.08.2011 that raw materials have been supplied to the appellant by his firm. He also confirmed the total quantity of such raw material supplied to the appellant during the years 2007-10,2010-2011 and 2011

= = = = = = = =

Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source

= = = = = = = =

the appellant, it was noticed that many of the sale transactions were found tallied with the credit entries in the bank account. Further, many of the entries found in the diaries were also duplicated in the loose sheets.
(vii) The investigating officers recorded the statements of Sh. Lalit Jain on 08.08.2011, 10.08.2011, 30.08.2011, 11.04.2013 and 17.05.2013. In these very detailed statements, Shri Lalit Jain has admitted the fact that raw materials were being procured often by cash without accounting. He also admitted that the finished goods were also cleared clandestinely for payments received by cheque and sometimes in cash. It is seen from the RUDs that he has confirmed in details the transactions with each of the raw materials suppliers as well as finished product purchasers. On the basis of the above main evidences, Revenue has made the case for demand of duty on the basis of allegations of clandestine removal.
9. The main grounds on which the order has been assailed are summar

= = = = = = = =

Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source

= = = = = = = =

aw material suppliers, quantity of raw materials procured and the period during which the same has been procured. The documents also indicate in detailed the various customers with the details of goods cleared as well as the payments received and pending. Many of the entries found are corroborated by payments made/ received in the bank account of the appellant. Obviously, such transactions are accounted. This leads us to the reasonable conclusion that the documents found are a truthful account of the actual transactions made by the appellant in terms of procurement of raw material as well as manufacture and clearance of the finished products. We also note that in the several statements recorded from Sh. Lalit Jain, he has admitted in detail each and every entry found in such documents. The adjudicating authority has also given detailed findings in para No. 20 on how the appellant factory had the capacity to manufacture the quantum of goods alleged to have been cleared clandestinely. We

= = = = = = = =

Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source

= = = = = = = =

in the light of the evidences placed on record by the Revenue in the form of documents as well as various inculpatory statements, we are of the view that the allegation that the appellant has procured raw materials, manufactured wires and cables and cleared the same clandestinely without payment of duty stands established. Consequently, the demand of duty as well as the penalties imposed in the impugned order is upheld. The order for confiscation of seized goods also stands upheld.”
5. Learned counsel urges that the Tribunal omitted to discuss the detailed evidence and besides merely placed its imprimatur on the findings of the Commissioner which is not expected of it. Learned counsel relied upon the judgment reported as Prabhat Zarda Factory Co. & Ors. v CCE, Delhi, CEAC No.7-9 of 2018 (decided on 16.5.2018). It was urged besides that the statements of the proprietor and his raw material suppliers were interpreted adversely against them and that the statement of several suppliers, in

= = = = = = = =

Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source

= = = = = = = =

did not fully corroborate the version given by Lalit Jain, the proprietor of the appellant. The order-in-original noted importantly as follows:
“14. It is submitted by RCI in defense that the documents on the basis of which demand is raised show only the amount and date; that these nowhere give the description of the goods or the quality or quantity of goods and the amounts mentioned have been assumed to be pertaining to the sale of goods manufactured and cleared clandestinely.
14.1 I find the truth to be otherwise. Infact, Annexure XII specifically refers to page No. 12 (supplied to RCI as relied upon document No. X) of S.No. 15 of Annexure 'A' to Panchnama dated 8.8.2011 drawn at the factory premises of RCI which mentions the name of the item(coil), their quantity, size, amount and name of the party (S.B. Elec., Erode). In this regard, Shri Lalit Jain, proprietor of RCI admitted that they cleared wire and cable valued at Rs. 17,66,345/- to M/s S.B. Electricals, Erode cland

= = = = = = = =

Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source

= = = = = = = =

these very parties by cheque/DD on various dates. These payments on verification by the Department were found to have been credited in the bank account of RCI, details of which were supplied to RCI as Annexure-III. Similar is the position of payments made to various raw material suppliers by cheque/DD and reflected in these documents (pages 1 to 7) which on verification were found to have been debited in RCI's bank account (Annexure-III of SCN). One of the suppliers of raw material Shri Naresh Gupta of M/s Balaji Metals confirmed in his statement that the entries shown in page 6 and 7 of S. No.6 of Annexure 'A' of Panchnama drawn at the residence in the name of 'Nareshje' pertained to his firm M/s Balaji Metals and he had received the amount mentioned from Shri Lalit Jain for supply of bare copper wire to RCI during in 2009-10 in cash and cheque. Further, the parties mentioned in these documents were also admitted by Shri Lalit Jain to be its buyers and supplier of

= = = = = = = =

Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source

= = = = = = = =

arly related to sale of wire and cables and purchase of raw materials only. Thus, there is sufficient evidence on record to show that the amount mentioned in the resumed documents represented value of the wire and cables clandestinely removed.
16. Relying on statements dated 10.08.2011 of Shri Lalit Jain and dated 14.03.2012 of Shri Prithiviraj it is submitted that the statements clearly show that the documents recovered from the residence were written by Shri Prithviraj; that an effort was made by Prithviraj to explain the entries in the records; that the details contain the amount pertaining to purchase and sale done by Prithviraj and that none of the details in those records pertained to RCI. It is further argued that statement dated 11.04.2013 and 17.05.2013 of Shri Lalit Jain are not correct statements.
16.1 I find from records that Shri Lalit Jain stated on 8.8.2011 that his elder brother Prithviraj was unemployed and was dependent on him. However, Shri Prithviraj stated on 4.1

= = = = = = = =

Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source

= = = = = = = =

3 but the same were also returned back undelivered. Thus, it is apparent that Sh. Prithviraj intentionally avoided his appearance before the department and facts disclosed by him in his statement dated 4.1.12 cannot be treated as truthful as he was assisting his brother Sh. Lalit Jain in his business operations of M/s Reliance as admitted by Sh. Lalit Jain in his statement dated 17.05.13.
16.2 I further find that explaining pages 1 to 7 of S. No.6 of Annexure 'A' to panchnarna drawn at the residence of Shri Lalit Jain, Shri Prithviraj stated that these details were related to commission received against sale of goods by him, cash transactions and details of money financed by him to different parties. He stressed upon that these transactions had no relation with the business of MIs Reliance. I find that untruthfulness of statement of Shri Prithviraj is evident from the fact, that various entries in these documents showing payment/receipt through cheque/DO to raw material suppli

= = = = = = = =

Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source

= = = = = = = =

the statement that “I am 8th pass. I can read and write Hindi and understand English”. He also wrote in his own hand “Seen & Read” before putting his signatures in English”. Further, on panchnama dated 8.8.2011 drawn at the factory premises of RCI he wrote in English in his own hand “Received copy of Panchnama” and put his dated signatures in English. In his statement dated 8.8.2011 he again in his own hand used and wrote various words in English like “PVC, MIB, Copper Wire, coil, OVEN, MOMENT, LINEMAN, CLASSIK, Industries, Bill No.105- Universal Enterprise, S.B. Electrical, H.D.F.C. BANK SHAHDARA, VISHWAS NAGAR, Bilty, SR.D. Transport” etc. Various English words like “insulated, concern, material, triplicate, entry, operator, enterprises, annexure” have also been written in Hindi while writing statement in Hindi. It is apparent from the above that Shri Lalit Jain is literate, has good working knowledge of English at least sufficient enough to understand the statement tendered/typed i

= = = = = = = =

Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source

= = = = = = = =

le as evidence. Regarding statement of Shri Naresh Gupta proprietor of M/s Balaji Metals, who admitted having supplied bare copper wire to RCI and also accepted the entries made at page No.6 and 7 of S.No. 6 of Annexure 'A' to Panchnama dated 8.S.2011 drawn at the residence of Shri Lalit Jain, it is submitted that as stated by Shri Prithviraj these entries pertained to trading done by him (Prithviraj). I have already discussed this point in paragraph 16, 16.1 and 16.2 above and come to the conclusion that statement of Shri Prithviraj does not state true facts and these entries are in fact related to unaccounted receipt of bare copper wire from M/s Balaji Metals. Thus, it is apparent that the resumed documentary evidence regarding receipt of excess and unaccounted raw material i.e. bare copper wire, PVC, etc. as reflected in the resumed documents stand corroborated by the statement of the raw material supplier, Shri Lalit Jain of RCI, and seizure of PVC, bare copper wire, master

= = = = = = = =

Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source

= = = = = = = =

continuously for 8 hrs that the unit worked in one shift only and did not have Generator Set in the factory.
20.1 I find from record that on 8.8.2011 when the factory premises of RCI were visited by the Department, the unit was found to be working with 10 workers. Two insulation machines, two mixers for heating and mixing PVC granules, one bunching machine, two lining machines and two coiling addas were also found installed. In his statement recorded on 8.8.2011 itself Shri Lalit Jain explaining the process of manufacture elaborated that with the help of the machines installed 300 cable bundles of 90 metre coil each could be manufactured in 8 hours. Nothing has been brought on record to disprove this part of the statement. Further, the statement stands corroborated by sales account of M/s S.B. Electricals, Erode for the month of July, 2011 resumed as page No. 12 of S. No. 15 of Annexure 'A' attached to Panchnama dated 8.8.2011 drawn at the factory premises of RCI (copy supplie

= = = = = = = =

Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source

= = = = = = = =

ub-meter installed in the factory. I find the ledger account of Power & Electricity for the year 2006-07 to 2011-12 submitted along with reply to the SCN to be unauthenticated. In the circumstances, no notice can be taken of it. Moreover, no evidence of use of electricity out of the main connection by others with use of sub-meter arid the quantity of goods manufactured by them has been brought on record. Further, for establishing charge of clandestine removal the Department is not bound to prove excess electricity consumption.
21. RCI has further argued that private record/diaries of third party cannot be the sold basis for clandestine removal where the authenticity is doubted or there is absence of corroborative evidence; that charge of clandestine removal must be corroborated by independent and unimpeachable evidence such as purchase of excess raw material/excess consumption of electricity/transport and delivery of goods; that burden to prove charge of clandestine removal is always

= = = = = = = =

Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source

= = = = = = = =

7. It is evident that when the appellant's premises were visited by the anti-evasion team, manufacturing activity was carried out. According to the order-in-original -based upon the inspection report, two insulation machines, two mixers for heating and mixing PVC granules, one bunching machine, two lining machines and two coiling addas were found installed. The statement of the proprietor Lalit Jain explained the process of manufacture and elaborated that with the help of machines installed 300 cable bundles of 90 metre coil each could be manufactured in eight hours. The Commissioner noted – in our opinion, correctly, that this itself established that the unit had the capacity to produce what was ultimately attributed to it. As far as the facts related to the raw material and the other documents recovered from the appellant are concerned, the Commissioner noted that the statement of the one Vimal Taparia, Proprietor of M/s Ankur Plastics clearly admitted that he had made sales of PVC

= = = = = = = =

Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source

= = = = = = = =

nt and the documents pertain to purchase and sale of the household goods of different persons. The Commissioner deduced that Sh. Prithvi Raj Jain appears to have distorted the facts with the motive of helping his brother. Initially, he had participated during the investigation but did not appear despite repeated summons in the proceedings. The Commissioner in these circumstances held that the statement of the proprietor's brother was unreliable and that the documents seized revealed a completely different story.
9. No doubt, the CESTAT has not discuss the evidence as greatly as it normally does and is expected to. What is however evident – from a plain reading of paras 6 to 10 is that the main points, which ultimately led the Commissioner to impose penalty and also inflict duty liability were taken into account. It is of course, desirable that the CESTAT as First Appellate Forum should discuss the evidence in some depth.
10. In the facts of this case, this Court is of the opinion tha

= = = = = = = =

Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source

= = = = = = = =

The Andhra Pradesh Goods and Services Tax (Twenty Fifth Amendment) Rules, 2018.
G.O.MS.No. 568 Dated:- 14-11-2018 Andhra Pradesh SGST
GST – States
Andhra Pradesh SGST
Andhra Pradesh SGST
GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
–
REVENUE (COMMERCIAL TAXES-II) DEPARTMENT
G.O.MS.No. 568 Dated: 14-11-2018.
NOTIFICATION
In exercise of the powers conferred by section 164 of the Andhra Pradesh Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (Act No.16 of 2017), the Government hereby make the following amendment to the Andhra Pradesh Goods and Services Tax Rules, 2017 issued in G.O.Ms.No.227, Revenue (CT-II) Dept., Dt.22-06-2017 as subsequently amended.
1. (i) These rules may be called the Andhra Pradesh Goods and Services Tax (Twenty Fifth Amendment) R

= = = = = = = =

Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source

= = = = = = = =

The Andhra Pradesh Goods and Services Tax (Twenty Sixth Amendment) Rules, 2018
G.O.MS.No. 569 Dated:- 14-11-2018 Andhra Pradesh SGST
GST – States
Andhra Pradesh SGST
Andhra Pradesh SGST
GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA PRADESH

REVENUE (COMMERCIAL TAXES-II) DEPARTMENT
G.O.MS.No. 569 Dated: 14-11-2018.
NOTIFICATION
In exercise of the powers conferred by section 164 of the Andhra Pradesh Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (Act No.16 of 2017), the Government hereby make the following amendment to the Andhra Pradesh Goods and Services Tax Rules, 2017 issued in G.O.Ms.No.227, Revenue (CT-II) Dept., Dt.22-06-2017 as subsequently amended.
1. (i) These rules may be called the Andhra Pradesh Goods and Services Tax (Twenty Sixth Amendment) Rul

= = = = = = = =

Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source

= = = = = = = =

321(E), dated the 23rd October, 2017; or
(b) availed the benefit of notification No. 78/2017-Customs, dated the 13th October, 2017, published in the Gazette of India, Extraordinary, Part II, Section 3, Sub-section (i), vide number G.S.R 1272(E), dated the 13th October, 2017 or notification No. 79/2017-Customs, dated the 13th October, 2017, published in the Gazette of India, Extraordinary, Part II, Section 3, Subsection (i), vide number G.S.R 1299(E), dated the 13th October, 2017, the refund of input tax credit, availed in respect of inputs received under the said notifications for export of goods and the input tax credit availed in respect of other inputs or input services to the extent used in making such export of goods, shall be granted

= = = = = = = =

Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source

= = = = = = = =

M/s. Suryadev Alloys and Power Pvt. Ltd. Versus Commissioner of GST & Central Excise Chennai Outer
Central Excise
2018 (11) TMI 1019 – CESTAT CHENNAI – TMI
CESTAT CHENNAI – AT
Dated:- 14-11-2018
Appeal No. E/42032/2018 – Final Order No. 42881/2018
Central Excise
Ms. Sulekha Beevi C.S., Member (Judicial)
Ms. S. Sridevi, Advocate for the Appellant
Shri L. Nandakumar, AC (AR) for the Respondent
ORDER
Brief facts are that the appellants are engaged in manufacture of MS bars, MS billets etc. and are availing the facility of CENVAT credit on inputs, capital goods and input services. During the course of audit, it was noticed that for the period September 2014 to September 2015, the appellant had wrongly availed credit to the tune of Rs. 21,35,493/- beyond the time limit of six months / one year in contravention of Rule 4(1) of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004. Show cause notice dated 2.5.2017 was issued proposing to recover the wrongly availed credit and to impose penalt

= = = = = = = =

Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source

= = = = = = = =

the appeal paper book and submitted that all the invoices are dated 14.6.2012 to 9.1.2014. and are issued prior to 1.9.2014. The time limit for availing credit was prescribed or has come into effect only with effect from 1.9.2014. Thus the invoices on which credit has been later availed by the appellant having been issued prior to 1.9.2014, the credit availed by the appellant is correct and proper. She clarified that the credit though availed by the appellant is after 1.9.2014, since the invoices are prior to 1.9.2014, the time limit provided in amended provision does not apply. She relied upon the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Voss Exotech Automotive Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Pune – 2018 (3) TMI 1048-CESTAT Mumbai; M/s. Hariprabha Chemicals Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Kolhapur – 2018 (9) TMI 19 – CESTAT Mumbai and M/s. Indian Potash Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Meerut – 2018 (10) TMI 1367-CESTAT Ahmedabad.
3. The ld. AR Shr

= = = = = = = =

Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source

= = = = = = = =

supra), wherein the Tribunal has discussed as under:-
“4. On careful consideration of the submissions made by both the sides, I find that for denial of the credit, the Notification No.21/14-CE(NT) dated 11.7.2014 was invoked wherein six months period is available for taking credit. As per the facts of the case, credit was taken in respect of the invoices issued in the month of March and April 2014 in November 2014. On going through the notification No.6/2015-CE(NT) dated 1.3.2015, the period available for taking credit is 1 year in terms of the notification, the invoices issued in the month of March and April 2014 become eligible for cenvat credit. I also observed that the notification No.21/14-ST(NT) dated 11.7.2014 should be applicable to those cases wherein the invoices were issued on or after 11.7.2014 for the reason that notification was not applicable to the invoices issued prior to the date of notification therefore at the time of issuance of the invoices no time limit was pres

= = = = = = = =

Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source

= = = = = = = =

Amendments in the Notification of the Government of Tripura in the Finance Department, No.F.1-11(91)-TAX/GST/2018(Part), dated the 14th September, 2018.
F.1-11(91)-TAX/GST/2018(Part-I) Dated:- 14-11-2018 Tripura SGST
GST – States
Tripura SGST
Tripura SGST
GOVERNMENT OF TRIPURA
FINANCE DEPARTMENT
(TAXES & EXCISE)
NO.F.1-11(91)-TAX/GST/2018(Part-I)
Dated, Agartala, the 14th November, 2018
NOTIFICATION
In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (3) of section 1, read with section 51 of the Tripura State Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (Tripura Act No. 9 of 2017), hereafter in this notification referred to as the said Act, the State Government, on the recommendations of the Council, hereby makes the following fur

= = = = = = = =

Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source

= = = = = = = =

M/s Krishna Enterprises Versus State Of U.P. And 2 Others
GST
2018 (11) TMI 956 – ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT – TMI
ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT – HC
Dated:- 14-11-2018
Writ Tax No. – 1445 of 2018
GST
Pankaj Mithal And Ashok Kumar JJ.
For the Petitioner : Rahul Agarwal
For the Respondent : C.S.C.
ORDER
Heard Sri Rahul Agarwal, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri C.B. Tripathi, learned counsel for the respondents.
The petitioner has come up in this petition against the order pa

= = = = = = = =

Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source

= = = = = = = =

Asian Cast And Forgings Private Limited Versus Union of India and others
GST
2018 (11) TMI 801 – PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT – TMI
PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT – HC
Dated:- 14-11-2018
CWP No. 28745 of 2018 (O&M)
GST
Mr Rajesh Bindal And Mr Manoj Bajaj, JJ.
For The Petitioner : Mr. Jagmohan Bansal and Mr. Chetan Jain, Advocates
For The Respondent : Mr. Tajender K. Joshi, Advocate And Mr. Pankaj Gupta, Additional Advocate General, Punjab
ORDER
Rajesh Bindal, J.
The

= = = = = = = =

Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source

= = = = = = = =

M/s. Suryadev Alloys & Power Pvt. Ltd. Versus Commissioner of GST & Central Excise Chennai Outer
Central Excise
2018 (11) TMI 739 – CESTAT CHENNAI – TMI
CESTAT CHENNAI – AT
Dated:- 14-11-2018
Appeal No. E/42092/2018 – Final Order No. 42882/2018
Central Excise
Ms. Sulekha Beevi C.S., Member (Judicial)
Ms. S. Sridevi, Advocate for the Appellant
Shri L. Nandakumar, AC (AR) for the Respondent
ORDER
Brief facts are that the appellants are engaged in manufacture of MS billets, TMT bars, etc. and are availing the facility of CENVAT credit on inputs, capital goods and input services. It was noticed that the appellants have availed CENVAT credit based on invoices issued by their head office as input service distributor wi

= = = = = = = =

Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source

= = = = = = = =

. She submitted that the appellant had reversed the entire credit even before issuance of the show cause notice. The only violation alleged by the department is that the head office had distributed the credit without taking ISD registration. Since there is only one unit apart from the head office, the credit was distributed and therefore the appellant was under bonafide belief that they are eligible to avail the credit. Further, the installation of air-conditioners where only renovation of the premises and the appellant is eligible for credit. Even though the credit impugned in this appeal is eligible, the appellant has reversed the same and is not contesting on merits. That the penalty therefore may be set aside.
3. The ld. AR Shri L. Nan

= = = = = = = =

Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source

= = = = = = = =

M/s S.R. Sales Versus State Of U.P. And 2 Others
GST
2018 (11) TMI 711 – ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT – 2018 (19) G. S. T. L. 409 (All.)
ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT – HC
Dated:- 14-11-2018
Writ Tax No. – 1446 of 2018
GST
Pankaj Mithal And Ashok Kumar JJ.
For the Petitioner : Rahul Agarwal
For the Respondent : C.S.C.
ORDER
Heard Sri Rahul Agarwal, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri C.B. Tripathi, learned counsel for the respondents.
The petitioner has preferred this writ petit

= = = = = = = =

Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source

= = = = = = = =

Sidhi Vinayak Agencies And Another Versus State Of U.P. And 2 Others
GST
2018 (11) TMI 710 – ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT – TMI
ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT – HC
Dated:- 14-11-2018
Writ Tax No. – 1449 of 2018
GST
Pankaj Mithal And Ashok Kumar JJ.
For the Petitioner : Shubham Agrawal
For the Respondent : C.S.C.
ORDER
Heard Sri Shubham Agrawal, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri C.B. Tripathi, learned counsel appearing for the respondents .
The petitioners are the selling and purchasing dealers of the goods in transit. The goods have been seized on account of the fact that a proper E-way bill was not accompanying the goods.
The submission of Sri Agrawal is that the E-way bill was generated on 2.11.2018 much before the inte

= = = = = = = =

Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source

= = = = = = = =

IGST refund on export of services
Query (Issue) Started By: – Archna Gupta Dated:- 13-11-2018 Last Reply Date:- 14-11-2018 Goods and Services Tax – GST
Got 6 Replies
GST
Dear Sir
We are unable to file refund application of IGST on export of software services on payment of tax. The issue is that when we filed GSTR-3B for the month of July 2017 we showed turnover correctly in zero rated supply but IGST was not shown but we correctly filed our GSTR-1 (on payment of IGST).
This mistake in GSTR-3B, we rectified in September 2018. There we showed the IGST amount and also set off the same from TRAN-1 ITC.
Now on uploading the file on site, it is showing the error message that IGST amount as per GSTR-3B is less than the amount that

= = = = = = = =

Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source

= = = = = = = =

and we include the details of IGST for the month of July 2017 in September 2018 which are consolidated details. Then how the department will come to know that part of September 2018 details pertained to July 2017.
This refund application are verifying the IGST refund details with GSTR-3B.
Reply By KASTURI SETHI:
The Reply:
Mistake occurred in GSTR-3 B cannot be rectified unless it is reopened (de-freezed) ) by the Grievance Redressal cell) in Common Portal System. That is why mismatch between the two returns still stands. You know very well GSTR 3B is provisional and it is only a proof of payment of GST. So try to lodge your problem with Grievance Redressal Cell.
In one of my client's case, GSTR 3 B return was re-opened by Grievanc

= = = = = = = =

Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source

= = = = = = = =

GST REGISTRATION
Query (Issue) Started By: – saketh ch Dated:- 13-11-2018 Last Reply Date:- 14-11-2018 Goods and Services Tax – GST
Got 2 Replies
GST
I have registered with GST and got GSTN number. But the GSTN wad cancelled within a month. Unfortunately, i have not noticed the same and continue the business without filing returns for span of 6 months.
Now, my GSTN was activated after filing all returns and payments for the said period. Now my query is the business during the period is valid under GST rules.
Pls clarify with relevant notifications/circulars
Thanks & Regards
Reply By KASTURI SETHI:
The Reply:
Your business remains valid during the said period of cancellation of GST registration number on the following groun

= = = = = = = =

Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source

= = = = = = = =

IGST REFUND-REG
Query (Issue) Started By: – Kusalava InternationalLimited Dated:- 13-11-2018 Last Reply Date:- 20-3-2019 Goods and Services Tax – GST
Got 4 Replies
GST
Supplies made to SEZ shown in GSTR-1 6A instead of GSTR-1 6B.when we apply for refund it is showing error message that these invoices are not availble in SEZ invoice list.How to correct this.Please guide
Reply By KASTURI SETHI:
The Reply:
Return stands frozen but you will not suffer loss because of this lapse. Such

= = = = = = = =

Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source

= = = = = = = =

Dealer's Registration Cancellation Overturned: No Evidence of Show Cause Notice Served, Violates Natural Justice Principles.
Case-Laws
GST
Principles of Natural Justice – non-service of SCN –

= = = = = = = =

Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source

= = = = = = = =

TCS on E-Commerce Operators
By: – Dinesh Kumar
Goods and Services Tax – GST
Dated:- 13-11-2018

The Government has notified the effective date of implementation of TCS provisions in GST returns w.e.f. 1.10.2018 (unless extended). This requires E-commerce operators like Amazon, Flipkart, etc. to collect TCS on the Transaction made by the suppliers through their portals w.e.f. the same date. If any under reporting is found, the same would be penalized by adding to the account of the supplier. The learned authors looks at the related provisions to bring attention to them so as to avoid penal actions.
As many transactions nowadays are happening through e-commerce mode, their day to day use in life is increasing. But with the implementation of GST, selling and purchase through GST is not as easy as it was earlier. There are many boundaries and restriction while transacting through E-Commerce. We will discuss here the provisions of TCS on E-commerce Operators.
E-commerce is

= = = = = = = =

Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source

= = = = = = = =

gh E-Commerce operator and will be termed as E-Commerce Suppliers.
3. Liability to collect TCS
As per provision of section 52 of the CGST Act, every e-commerce operator, not being an agent is required to collect tax known as TCS on the net taxable value in case a supplier supplies some goods or services through its portal and the payment for that supply is collected by the e-commerce operator.
Tax is to be collected on net taxable value of goods or services supplied by other suppliers through e-commerce operator.
Tax is to be collected on net taxable value of goods or services supplied by other suppliers through e-commerce operator.
Explanation to section 52(1) clarifies that “net value of taxable suppliers” shall mean the aggregate value of taxable suppliers of goods or services or both made during any month by all registered persons through the e-commerce operator as reduced by the aggregate value of taxable supplies returned to the suppliers during the said month. Further, spec

= = = = = = = =

Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source

= = = = = = = =

Commerce Operators
A Deputy Commissioner or a person above the rank of Deputy Commissioner can issue a notice to the E-Commerce Operator asking him to furnish details regarding the volume of Goods/Services supplied, rate and value, goods still lying in godown etc.
On receiving such notice the operator is required to furnish such details within 15 working days. In case the operator fails to furnish such information within 15 days, he would be liable for penal action and penalty upto ₹ 25000.
Further other relevant points can be noted out which are as follows:
* The seller is required to follow the process of filing other GSTR Returns as applicable from time to time
* The seller is required to disclose the sale made through GSTR-1 Return. The GST no. of the E-commerce portal is required to be disclosed in GSTR-1.
* The E-commerce portal would be specifically required to raise an invoice to the seller for the commission being charged by them for selling the product on the E

= = = = = = = =

Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source

= = = = = = = =

M/s. RANE BRAKE LINING LTD. Versus COMMISSIONER OF GST & CENTRAL EXCISE, NORTH COMMISSIONERATE, CHENNAI
Central Excise
2019 (2) TMI 253 – CESTAT CHENNAI – TMI
CESTAT CHENNAI – AT
Dated:- 13-11-2018
E/42015/2018 – FINAL ORDER NO. 42887/2018
Central Excise
Smt. Sulekha Beevi C.S, Judicial Member
For the Appellant: Ms. S. Sridevi and Shri Nitin, Adv/s.
For the Respondent: Shri L. Nandakumar, AC (AR)
ORDER
Brief facts of the case are that the appellants are engaged in the manufacture of brake linings and are availing the facility of Cenvat Credit on inputs, capital goods and input services. During the course of audit, it was found that the appellants have availed service tax credit on Product Liability Insurance for

= = = = = = = =

Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source

= = = = = = = =

nished products, namely, brake lining, clutch facings and railway brake blocks. In case, the appellants are not indemnified for defects of the finished products, they would incur huge financial losses for payment of compensation. Such insurance policies are directly related to the manufacture of the finished products. He relied upon the decision of the Tribunal in the case of M/s. Sify Technologies Pvt. Ltd., vide Final Order No.42550/2018, dated 09.10.2018 as well as the decision of the Tribunal in the appellant's own case reported in 2018 (7) TMI 611 – CESTAT CHENNAI.
4. The learned Authorised Representative Shri L. Nandakumar supported the findings in the impugned order.
5. Heard both sides,
6. The issue is the eligibility of cre

= = = = = = = =

Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source

= = = = = = = =

M/s. M.M. Engineers Pvt. Ltd. (Unit I & Unit II) Versus Commissioner of GST & Central Excise Coimbatore
Central Excise
2019 (2) TMI 136 – CESTAT CHENNAI – TMI
CESTAT CHENNAI – AT
Dated:- 13-11-2018
Appeal Nos. E/856/2003 and E/1144/2004 – Final Order Nos. 42811-42812/2018
Central Excise
Ms. Sulekha Beevi C.S., Member (Judicial) And Shri Madhu Mohan Damodhar, Member (Technical)
Shri R. Balagopal, Consultant for the Appellant
Shri L. Nandakumar, AC (AR) for the Respondent
ORDER
Per Bench
Both these appeals being connected, they were heard together and disposed by this common order.
2. Appellant in Appeal No. E/856/2003 is Unit – II whereas in Appeal No. E/1144/2004 is Unit -I of M/s. M.M. Engineers Pvt. Ltd.
3. Brief facts are that the appellants Unit – I are manufacturers of cranes and parts thereof. They were availing the SSI exemption under Notification No.1/93-CE and clearing goods without payment of duty. During October 1997, the officers visited the

= = = = = = = =

Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source

= = = = = = = =

rayed that the said option may be extended to the appellant in Unit – I.
4.2 In respect of Unit – II, the ld. consultant submitted that they do not contest the duty liability for 1994 – 95, 1995 – 96 and also for 1996 – 97. It is argued by him that the demand for the period 1997 – 98 is not sustainable for the reason that for the previous year that is 1996 – 97, the turnover is less than Rs. 300 lakhs. Therefore, the appellant has rightly availed the SSI exemption provided in Notification No. 38/1997. In respect of Unit – II, the show cause notice demanded duty of Rs. 2,68,455/-. In respect of the year 1997 – 98, in para 12.5.2 of the adjudication order, the adjudicating authority has excluded the value of Rs. 84,585/- from the total turnover alleged in the show cause notice which is Rs. 3,00,56,769/-. The corresponding duty liability then would be reduced to Rs. 12,687/-. Further, if this amount of Rs. 84,585/- is reduced from the turnover of Rs. 3,00,56,769/-, the actual turnover f

= = = = = = = =

Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source

= = = = = = = =

on 38/97 and the findings of the adjudicating authority that the appellant has already availed SSI exemption under 1/93 and was availing MODVAT credit and therefore is not eligible for the SSI exemption is incorrect. He therefore pleaded that the demand in the case of Unit – II for the period 1997 – 98 cannot sustain and the penalties imposed to the tune of Rs. 1,54,519/- also cannot sustain for the same reason.
5. The ld. AR Shri L. Nandakumar supported the findings in the impugned order.
6. Heard both sides.
7. The appellant is not contesting the duty liability in respect of Unit – I and is requesting only the benefit of reduced penalty of 25% of the duty amount in Appeal No. E/1144/2004. The said request of the appellant is legal and proper for the reason that the adjudicating authority ought to have given the option to pay the reduced penalty of 25% under section 11AC. Thus, the impugned order in Appeal No. E/1144/2004 stands modified to the extent of granting the option to pay

= = = = = = = =

Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source

= = = = = = = =

te of duty at 60%/ 80%. The notification does not provide any bar for availing MODVAT credit. So also the notification in clause (iii) in para 2 states that when the manufacturer opts for benefit of this notification, the goods already cleared during the financial year prior to the SSI notification, the option shall be taken into account for computing the aggregate value of clearances. When the notification was introduced only in 27.6.1997, the appellants have availed the benefit of notification and paid reduced duty. The authorities below have wrongly denied this notification stating that since the appellant has availed MODVAT credit and also because they have availed notification 1/93, in the financial year, they are not eligible for benefit of 38/97. After perusing the facts, we hold that the appellant is eligible for the SSI benefit under Notification 38/97. It is also to be noted that the adjudicating authority for the period 1996 – 97 has excluded the value of Rs. 84,585/- and th

= = = = = = = =

Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source

= = = = = = = =

M/s. Mando India Ltd. Versus Commissioner of GST & Central Excise Chennai
Central Excise
2019 (2) TMI 75 – CESTAT CHENNAI – TMI
CESTAT CHENNAI – AT
Dated:- 13-11-2018
Appeal No. E/369/2012 – Final Order No. 42813/2018
Central Excise
Ms. Sulekha Beevi C.S., Member (Judicial) And Shri Madhu Mohan Damodhar, Member (Technical)
Shri Raghavan Ramabhadran, Advocate for the Appellant
Shri B. Balamurugan, AC (AR) for the Respondent
ORDER
Per Bench
The appellants are engaged in manufacture of break assembly and shock assembly and are registered with the Central Excise Department. Based on intelligence that the appellants are clearing CENVAT availed inputs without reversing the credit, cleared goods without paying excise duty etc., investigation was conducted. After such investigation, show cause notice was issued inter alia alleging that:-
* The assessee have cleared certain CENVAT availed inputs under delivery challans without reversing the CENVAT credit to the t

= = = = = = = =

Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source

= = = = = = = =

for M/s.Mahindran Renault and issued invoices but failed to pay appropriate excise duty to the tune of Rs. 7,13,683/- during the period from 1.4.2006 to 28.2.2010 as per Annexure A5 to the notice.
2. After due process of law, the adjudicating authority confirmed the demand along with interest and also imposed penalty. Aggrieved, the appellants are now before the Tribunal.
3.0 On behalf of the appellant, ld. counsel Shri Raghavan Ramabhadra made the following submissions:
3.1 Owing to space constraints, the appellants used a portion of Panelpina Warehouse for storing goods / inputs. This was done after obtaining permission from department. The inputs were brought from warehouse as per manufacturing requirements, under GDN and as per Goods Receipt Note (GRN) credit was availed. When the entire quantity brought was not consumed, the same was returned to factory on Returnable Delivery Challan. When required they were retransferred to factory under GDN. The credit was availed only when t

= = = = = = = =

Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source

= = = = = = = =

d order has rejected this submission on the ground that it was an afterthought and new facts could not be entertained at the stage of adjudication of the dispute. The above averment was made throughout the proceedings, and even in the reply to the show cause notice.
3.4 In any case, the storage outside the factory premises was done after obtaining necessary approval under Rule 6A of CCR, 2002/Rule 8 of CCR 2004. When the movement was authorised by the Department themselves, they cannot now turn around and seek reversal of credit.
3.5 In any case, the Appellant submits that the instant case is not one of Revenue Leakage. The present case is one where, had the Appellant reversed the credit under Rule 3(5), the same amount would have been available to them again at the time when the returned inputs are brought back from Panelpina Warehouse to the factory for use in manufacture. This credit would have been eligible and would have been utilised towards excise duty payments. To have follow

= = = = = = = =

Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source

= = = = = = = =

628 (Guj.)] and CCE v. Narayan Polyplast [2005 (179) E.L.T. 20 (S.C.)]. Therefore, the demand for reversal under Rule 3(5) is wholly baseless and merits to be set aside.
3.7 As regards the third issue, it is submitted that the liability to pay differential duty under Rule 16 of the Credit Rules, 2002 does not arise. In some cases, the finished goods are sent back to the Appellant for defects. The Appellant takes credit in terms of Rule 16 of the CER. Where the defects can be rectified, the Appellant repairs the goods, clears the same back to the customer and reverses credit availed, thereby complying with Rule 16. Where goods are not capable of repair, the Appellant disposes them as scrap without executing any process on such goods. In such cases, duty is paid on the value of scrap sold. The Appellant submits that differential duty is not liable to be paid, as duty has been accurately paid on the transaction value of the scrap.
3.8 The second limb of Rule 16(2) prescribes payment of

= = = = = = = =

Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source

= = = = = = = =

testing is wholly mis-placed. The Appellant submits that the Appellant sends out finished goods to its customers for testing of quality parameters under RDC, as the customers usually seek the finished goods on Just-in-time basis. The finished goods are returned to the Appellant the very next day. The Appellant submits that the case of the Department herein is not that no excise duty was paid on the said final products. However, the finished goods are sent out so that the customer may test the said final products, and then place Purchase Orders on the Appellant on the basis of parameters as satisfied by the samples provided by the Appellant. As there is no allegation that the said finished goods were not received back by the Appellant, or that even a part of them escaped duty at the time of clearance for sale, the Appellant submits that the demand is wholly misplaced and must be set aside.
3.11 The demand for excise duty on repair work done for customers is not sustainable as the said

= = = = = = = =

Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source

= = = = = = = =

nt sends out inputs to Job Workers such as M/S Premier for tool grinding, and other processing works. The Appellant submits that the instant case is squarely covered under Rule 4(5)(a) of the Credit Rules, which permit credit-availed inputs to be sent out to a job worker for further processing, testing, repair, re-conditioning, etc. The Department has contested this on the ground that valid excise invoice did not cover the transaction. The Appellant has shown the invoices under which inputs are cleared to the Job workers for carrying out job work, and the return documents under which the Job worker returns the jobbed inputs to the Appellant. Merely because the said documents are addressed as 'RDC' the transaction does not become a clearance liable to excise duty payment. The demand on this count merits to be set aside in entirety.
3.13 The demand for excise duty on goods cleared under RDC during system failure is not tenable. The Appellant submits that the demand for excise duty on go

= = = = = = = =

Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source

= = = = = = = =

one under the cover of appropriate documentation such as Rule 4(5)(a) challans, etc. All the necessary information was gathered by the Department upon verification of the internal records of the appellant which itself shows that due disclosures had been made. The impugned order has invoked extended period on the sole ground that the appellant has voluntarily paid the entire duty. The order does not bring out any case apart from this to prove suppression or mala fide intention on part of the appellant. It is settled law that for invocation of extended period, there ought to be positive act on the part of the appellant. In this regard, reliance is placed on Continental Foundation Jt. Venture v. CCE [2007 (216) E.L.T. 177 (S.C.)]. In the present case, the department having failed to establish the same, extended period is not invokable. Therefore, if at all, the demand ought to be restricted to the normal period, i.e., from 01.02.2010 to 28.02.2010.
4. On behalf of Revenue, ld. AR Shri B.

= = = = = = = =

Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source

= = = = = = = =

inputs are removed as such. Hence the extended period has been rightly invoked.
5. Heard both sides.
6.1 The first issue is with regard to the demand of credit to the tune of Rs. 92,64,820/-. As narrated from the facts and submissions stated above, it can be seen that the appellants were storing inputs in their warehouse at Panelpina. It is not disputed that they had obtained permission from the department for storing the goods in the said warehouse. As per the requirement in the factory, they had removed the inputs from the warehouse to the factory. However, the practice followed by the appellant was that the unused inputs were returned to the warehouse due to space constraints on Returnable Delivery Challan (RDC). Thereafter, whenever the inputs were again required, they are retransferred from the warehouse to the factory under Goods Delivery Note (GDN). Thus, all the retransfer / removal of goods were being done under documents. The only allegation of the department is that at ea

= = = = = = = =

Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source

= = = = = = = =

sent to the warehouse due to space constraints would only add more accounting work. Since there is no revenue loss from such acts of the appellants and is only a procedural infraction, we consider that the demand cannot sustain. The Tribunal in the case of Reliance Industries Ltd. (supra), in a similar situation, held that when there is no revenue loss and the procedure would only add more scriptory work to the assesse, the demand would not sustain. For the discussions made above, we hold that the demand on this score to the tune of Rs. 92,64,820/- requires to be set aside, which we hereby do.
6.2 The differential duty of Rs. 11,90,475/- has been demanded under Rule 16. The appellant undertake repair of rejected goods which are returned by customers. They avail credit in terms of Rule 16 on such rejected goods. Whenever the rejected goods were repaired and sent to customers, such credit was reversed under Rule 16. Whenever the rejected goods were incapable of being repaired, they clea

= = = = = = = =

Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source

= = = = = = = =

ned goods. Therefore, on the question of whether first part of sub-rule or the second part of sub-rule of Rule 16 is applicable, we find on the very same issue has been detail in detail by the Tribunal's coordinate Bench, Mumbai in the case of M/s. Apollo Tyres Ltd. Vs. CCE, Pune – II (supra) allowed the appeal.
xxxx
xxx
xxxxx
xxxxx
We are in agreement with the above decisions and the same are applicable to the present case as the issues are identical and the duty paid goods are rejected and returned to the factory of the assessee and without doing any processes the said goods were sold by auction to third party 'as is where is basis' and cleared on payment of excise duty on the transaction value as per Section 4 of the Central Excise Act.
xxxx
xxx
xxxxx
xxxxx
In view of the foregoing discussions and by maintaining this Tribunal's decision in the case of Craftsman Automation (P) Ltd. case, which relied M/s. Apollo Tyres (P) Ltd. case, we hold that in the present case, the s

= = = = = = = =

Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source

= = = = = = = =

der RDC and are received at the appellant's factories that very day or the next day.
50,917/-
Goods returned to customers after repairs
Components supplied to customers are returned to appellant for repair work, under RDC as per Rule 4(5)(a) of the Credit Rules. Appellant carries out repair work and then supplies the repaired commodities to customers under its RDC
4,42,938/-
Goods sent out for job work
Appellant sends out inputs / capital goods for further processing or for tool grinding purposes to job workers and RDC
17,84,883/-
Invoices issued belatedly due to system failure
In some circumstances, there is a system failure while supplying components due to which invoice could not be raised at the time of clearance. In such situations, the appellant clears the goods under RDC and then subsequently raises excise invoice on payment of ED
18,06,561/-
 
Total
40,85,299/-
6.4 From the above Table, the first demand to the tune of Rs. 50,917/- is in respect of central exc

= = = = = = = =

Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source

= = = = = = = =

sed in the orders passed by authorities below does not throw much light as to the activity of repair/testing undertaken would amount to manufacture or not. Hence, in our view, this issue also requires reconsideration by adjudicating authority. Needless to say that if the activity of repair does not amount to manufacture, the demand would not sustain. This issue is therefore remanded.
6.6 An amount of Rs. 17,84,883/- is seen to be a demand of excise duty raised when the appellant has sent inputs / capital goods for further processing or for tool grinding purposes to job workers under RDC. It is submitted by ld. counsel that the said goods were sent under Rule 4(5)(a) of CENVAT Credit Rules and received within 180 days. The department also has admitted that such goods are cleared under the said provision of law. Interestingly, the demand of excise duty is not on job worked goods and instead the demand of excise duty is on inputs / capital goods which are sent for job work which, in our

= = = = = = = =

Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source

= = = = = = = =

IGST Export Refund-extension in SB005 alternate mechanism revised processing in certain cases including disbursal of compensation cess
PUBLIC NOTICE NO. 22/2018 Dated:- 13-11-2018 Trade Notice
Customs
OFFICE OF THE COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS
NEW CUSTOMS HOUSE, PANAMBUR, MANGALURU – 575 010
www.customsmangalore.gov.in Phone No: 0824-2408164
E-Mail ID: commr-cusmnglr@nic.in Fax No: 0824-2407100
C.No. S-11/56/2018 IGST
Date: 13.11.2018
PUBLIC NOTICE NO. 22/2018
Sub: IGST Export Refund-extension in SB005 alternate mechanism revised processing in certain cases including disbursal of compensation cess-reg.
Attention to all exporters, their authorised representatives and all other stakeholders is invited to CBEC Circular No. 40/2018-Customs dated 24.10.2018 on the subject mentioned above.
2. It has been observed that even though the exporters are availing the refund of IGST paid on exports for more than a year now, errors are still being committed, which have hampered smooth s

= = = = = = = =

Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source

= = = = = = = =

lled due to the IGST paid amount being erroneously declared as 'NA' are already being handled through officer interface as per Circular 08/2018-Customs, dated 23.03.2018. However, no such provision was hitherto available in respect of those SBS which were successfully scrolled, albeit with a lesser than eligible amount. Representations have been received that refund scrolls have been generated for a much lesser IGST amount than what has actually been paid against the exported goods. Broadly, this has happened due to:
a. Error made by the exporter/ CHA in declaring the IGST paid amount in SB or,
b. Cases where compensation cess paid amount was not entered by the exporter in the SB along with the IGST paid amount or the same details were not transmitted by GSTN, and the scroll consequently got generated only for the IGST amount or,
c. Typographical mistake by the customs officer while sanctioning the refund through officer interface.
5. In a bid to provide relief to export

= = = = = = = =

Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source

= = = = = = = =

g the RRR.
8. Difficulties, if any, should be brought to the notice of Assistant Commissioner of Customs (Drawback & IGST Refund), New Customs House, Panambur, Mangaluru, on 0824-2406084 or emailed to acnch.mglr-customs@gov.in.
(PARAG C BORKAR)
COMMISSIONER
=============
Document 1
SB Number:
GSTIN:
Annexure A1: Revised Refund Request (RRR)
SB Date:
IEC:
Sl. No
Amount
Sl No GST Invoice IGST
1
2
3
4
5
сл
10
7
Number/
Date
1
2
3
4
Port Code:
Exporter Name:
Corresponding IGST
Final
SB Invoice No. Amount as (corrected)
/Date
declared
IGST
per SB
Amount
per
exports*
as
actual
* after reducing amount pertaining to Short shipment etc.
IGST Refund already received (A):
Total Revised IGST Claim (B):
Differential IGST Refund (B-A):
I declare that all the details declared given above are true to my knowledge and all the
items contained in the above invoices have been exported out of India.
I further declare that all the GST invoices pertaining t

= = = = = = = =

Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source

= = = = = = = =

In Re: M/s. Columbia Asia Hospitals Private Limited
GST
2018 (12) TMI 474 – AUTHORITY FOR ADVANCE RULINGS, KARNATAKA – 2019 (20) G. S. T. L. 154 (A. A. R. – GST)
AUTHORITY FOR ADVANCE RULINGS, KARNATAKA – AAR
Dated:- 13-11-2018
AAR No. KAR ADRG 26/2018
GST
SRI. HARISH DHARNIA, AND DR. RAVI PRASAD M.P. MEMBER
Represented by Sri Naveen Rajapurohit, Chartered Accountant
ORDER UNDER SUB-SECTION (4) OF SECTION 98 OF CENTRAL GOODS AND SERVICE TAX ACT, 2017 AND UNDER SUB-SECTION (4) OF SECTION 98 OF KARNATAKA GOODS AND SERVICES TAX ACT, 2017
1. M/s. Columbia Asia Hospitals Private Limited, (called as the 'Applicant' hereinafter), having its registered office at The Icon, 2nd Floor, No.8, 80 feet Road, HAL Ill Stage, Indiranagar, Bengaluru 560075 has filed an application for Advance Ruling under Section 97 of CGST Act, 2017, KGST Act, 2017 read with Rule 104 of CGST Rules 2017 & KGST Rules 2017, in form GST ARA-01 discharging the fee of Rs. 5,000-00 each under the CGS

= = = = = = = =

Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source

= = = = = = = =

vices related to both taxable supply and exempted supply?”
4. The applicant furnishes some facts relevant to the stated activity:
a. The applicant states that he is a private limited company and is an international healthcare group operating a chain of modern hospitals across Asia. The Company is currently operating across six different states having eleven hospitals out of which six units are in the state of Karnataka. The Hospitals owned by the applicant are engaged in providing secondary and tertiary Healthcare services which in turn categorises as In-patient (IP)) and Out-patient (OP) services.
b. In case of inpatient services, the patients get admitted in the hospital for an invasive or non-invasive procedure. During the course of such treatment, all the necessary medicines, medical and non-medical consumables, implants, etc. are supplied to the patients. At the time of discharge, the charges for all the goods and services supplied would be collected by raising a consolidated

= = = = = = = =

Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source

= = = = = = = =

e applicant has taken support of the provisions of section 7(1), section 2(30), section 2(47) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act which define the “supply”, “composite supply” and “exempt supply” and states that as per entry no. 74 of the Notification No.12/2017 – Central Tax (Rate) dated 28.06.2017, healthcare services are exempted from GST. However, supply of medicines (pharmacy), consumables and supply of food are taxable at different rates under GST.
f. With these facts, the applicant has sought an advance ruling on the matters already enumerated above.
4.1 The applicant states that as per definition of “composite supply”, it can be inferred from the word “taxable supply” included in the definition of composite supply that it covers only such supplies which are subject to GST and not the exempt supplies. Therefore, in the instant case, though two or more supplies are naturally bundled, i.e. healthcare services, being exempt supply, the same cannot be treated as composite

= = = = = = = =

Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source

= = = = = = = =

of his claim. The applicant stated that there are certain services used in common to provide both taxable and exempted services. As per section 17 (2) of CGST Act, 2017, the applicant is entitled to avail credit of input tax paid on procurement of such goods and/or services on proportionate basis to the extent attributable to outward taxable supplies of medicines and consumables.
6. The applicant states that under pre-GST regime, the applicant company was required to reverse the CENVAT credit availed on input material and input services consumed in the manufacture of the exempted products or provision of exempted services under rule 6 of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004. However there was no requirement to reverse the amount of CENVAT credit availed in capital goods.
7. As per section 16(1) Of the CGST Act, “Every registered person shall, subject to such conditions and restrictions as may be prescribed and in the manner specified in section 49, be entitled to take credit of input tax charge

= = = = = = = =

Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source

= = = = = = = =

red person not to avail the credit of CGST paid on procurement of inputs, input services and capital goods which are attributable to supply of exempted services.
9. Based on the facts above, the applicant requests this Authority to clarify if,-
1) the Healthcare services provided, which is an exempt service along with other taxable supplies to in-patients and out-patients, can be construed as Composite supply?
a. If yes, is supply of pharmacy goods, consumables and canteen services forms part of such composite supplies, not liable to tax?
b. Valuation of IP pharmacy, if the same is treated as part of composite supply?
2) the said supply cannot be construed as a composite supply, is it correct to discharge GST liability only on supply of medicine, consumables and food that are supplied in conjunction with healthcare services and simultaneously availing input tax credit on GST paid on inputs and input services procured for providing supply of medicines and consumables?
3) the

= = = = = = = =

Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source

= = = = = = = =

of goods or services or both such as sale, transfer, barter, exchange, licence, rental, lease or disposal made or agreed to be made for a consideration by a person in the course or furtherance of business;
(b) import of services for a consideration whether or not in the course or furtherance of business;
(c) the activities specified in Schedule I, made or agreed to be made without a consideration; and
(d) The activities to be treated as supply of goods or supply of services as referred to in Schedule II.”
The applicant company is providing healthcare services, services of providing food, supply of medicines, etc. to the patients, both in-patient and out-patients for a consideration in the course of or furtherance of its business and hence the supply amounts to “Supply” under section 7 (1) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017.
11.2 Sub-section (30) of section 2 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 defines “Composite Supply” as under:
“(30) “composite

= = = = = = = =

Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source

= = = = = = = =

xempt supplies. But the definition of taxable supplies includes those supplies of goods which are leviable to tax and chosen to be exempted under section 11 and hence the exempt supplies also fall under the category of taxable supplies and hence the supply of goods and services supplied by the applicant company in conjunction with the healthcare services fall under the definition of “composite supply” as the services of supply of food and medicines to the patients are as advised by the doctor or nutritionists. But in case where the supply of food is not as advised by the doctor or nutritionists and is supplied to the patients, then such supply of food cannot be treated as “naturally bundled” supplies and supplies made in conjunction with each other and hence are separate supplies and needs to be treated not as composite supplies But as far as medicines supplied to the inpatients are concerned, they form part of the healthcare services supplied to the concerned patients and hence are pa

= = = = = = = =

Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source

= = = = = = = =

ed in case of food and drinks supplied to patients. But in case where the supply of medicines and food and drinks form part of the supply of healthcare services and there is no choice for the patients to choose them separately, then they would form a composite supply with healthcare services being the principal supply.
11.4 The applicant has raised a question on valuation of the items of medicines and food and drinks when they form a part of the composite supply, the same needs to be answered as under:
(a) In case where the medicines and articles of food and drinks form part of the single price including the supply of healthcare services, then there is no need for separate valuation of the same; and
(b) In case where the same do not form a part of the composite supply but still are supplied for a single price, then they would constitute a mixed supply and the entire price received would be liable to be taxed at the highest rate applicable to the goods or service supplied as per sec

= = = = = = = =

Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source

= = = = = = = =

rson shall, subject to such conditions and restrictions as may be prescribed and in the manner specified in section 49, be entitled to take credit of input tax charged on any supply of goods or services or both to him which are used or intended to be used in the course or furtherance of his business and the said amount shall be credited to the electronic credit ledger of such person.”
Since the applicant is using the inputs and input services in the course or furtherance of his business, credit of such tax paid on such inward supplies can be claimed by him.
11.6 Sub-section (2) of section 17 of the Central Goods and Services Act 2017 reads as under:
“(2) Where the goods or services or both are used by the registered person partly for effecting taxable supplies including zero-rated supplies under this Act or under the Integrated Goods and Services Tax Act and partly for effecting exempt supplies under the said Acts, the amount of credit shall be restricted to so much of the input tax

= = = = = = = =

Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source

= = = = = = = =

The Uttar Pradesh Goods and Services Tax (Twenty Fourth Amendment) Rules, 2018.
KA.NI.-2-2005/XI-9(42) Dated:- 13-11-2018 Uttar Pradesh SGST
GST – States
Uttar Pradesh SGST
Uttar Pradesh SGST
Uttar Pradesh Shasan
Sansthagat Vitta, Kar Evam Nibandhan Anubhag-2
NOTIFICATION
NO. KA.NI.-2-2005/XI-9(42)/17-U.P.GST Rules-2017-Order-(155)-2018
Lucknow : Dated : November 13, 2018
In exercise of the powers conferred by section 164 of the Uttar Pradesh Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (U.P. Act no. 1 of 2017) read with section 21 of the Uttar Pradesh General Clauses Act, 1904 (U.P. Act no. 1 of 1904), the Governor is pleased to make the following rules with a view to amending the Uttar Pradesh Goods And Services Tax Rules, 2017, n

= = = = = = = =

Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source

= = = = = = = =

nt of Uttar Pradesh, notification No. KA.NI.-2-1663/XI-9(15)/17-U.P. Act-1-2017-Order-(73)-2017 Dated 16 November, 2017.
the refund of input tax credit, availed in respect of inputs received under the said notifications for export of goods and the input tax credit availed in respect of other inputs or input services to the extent used in making such export of goods, shall be granted.”.
Amendment of rule 96
3. 3. In the said rules, in rule 96, for sub-rule (10), the following sub-rule shall be substituted, namely:-
“(10) The persons claiming refund of integrated tax paid on exports of goods or services should not have –
(a) received supplies on which the benefit of the Government of Uttar Pradesh, notification No. KA.NI.-2-1696/XI-9-(4

= = = = = = = =

Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source

= = = = = = = =

The Uttar Pradesh Goods and Services Tax (Twenty third Amendment) Rules, 2018.
KA.NI.-2-2004/XI-9(42)/17 Dated:- 13-11-2018 Uttar Pradesh SGST
GST – States
Uttar Pradesh SGST
Uttar Pradesh SGST
Uttar Pradesh Shasan
Sansthagat Vitta, Kar Evam Nibandhan Anubhag-2
NOTIFICATION
NO. KA.NI.-2-2004/XI-9(42)/17-U.P.GST Rules-2017-Order-(154)-2018
Lucknow : Dated : November 13, 2018
In exercise of the powers conferred by section 164 of the Uttar Pradesh Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (U.P. Act no. 1 of 2017) read with section 21 of the Uttar Pradesh General Clauses Act, 1904 (U.P. Act no. 1 of 1904), the Governor is pleased to make the following rules with a view to amending the Uttar Pradesh Goods and Services Tax Rules, 2017,

= = = = = = = =

Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source

= = = = = = = =

Seeks to extend the due date for filing of FORM GSTR – 1 for taxpayers having aggregate turnover up to 1.5 crores
KA.NI.-2-1822/XI-9(42)/17 Dated:- 13-11-2018 Uttar Pradesh SGST
GST – States
Uttar Pradesh SGST
Uttar Pradesh SGST
Uttar Pradesh Shasan
Sansthagat Vitta, Kar Evam Nibandhan Anubhag-2
NOTIFICATION
NO. KA.NI.-2-1822/XI-9(42)/17-U.P.Act-01-2017-Order-(156)-2018
Lucknow : Dated : November 13, 2018
In exercise of the powers conferred by section 148 of the Uttar Pradesh Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (U.P. Act no. 1 of 2017), (hereafter in this notification referred to as the said Act), and in supersession of
(i) Notification No. KA.NI.-2-1790/XI-9(42)/17-U.P.Act-1-2017-Order-(83)-2017 Dated 24.11.2017; and
(ii

= = = = = = = =

Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source

= = = = = = = =

column (2) of the Table below till the time period as specified in the corresponding entry in column (3) of the said Table, namely:-
Table
Sl. No.
Quarter for which details in FORM GSTR-1 are furnished
Time period for furnishing details in FORM GSTR-1
(1)
(2)
(3)
1.
July – September, 2017
31st October, 2018
2.
October – December, 2017
31st October, 2018
3.
January – March, 2018
31st October, 2018
4.
April June, 2018
31st October, 2018
5.
July – September, 2018
31st October, 2018
6.
October – December, 201 8
31st January, 2019
7.
January – March, 2019
30th April, 2019
Provided that the details of outward supply of goods or services or both in FORM GSTR-1 for the quarter from July, 2018 to September, 2018 by-
(i

= = = = = = = =

Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source

= = = = = = = =

Principal Commissioner of Central Tax, GST Delhi North Versus Pymen Cable (India)
Central Excise
2018 (11) TMI 1146 – DELHI HIGH COURT – 2019 (365) E.L.T. 25 (Del.)
DELHI HIGH COURT – HC
Dated:- 13-11-2018
CEAC 13/2018, CM APPL. 15130/2018
Central Excise
MR. S. RAVINDRA BHAT AND MR. PRATEEK JALAN JJ.
Petitioner Through: Mr. Amit Bansal, Adv.  
Respondent Through: Mr. Parth Mullick, Advocate  
O R D E R
CM APPL. 15130/2018
Issue notice.
Mr. Mr. Parth Mullick, Advocate accepts notice on behalf of the respondent.
For the reasons stated in the application, the delay in filing the appeal is condoned.
The application is disposed of.
CEAC 13/2018
We have heard counsel for the parties and are of the opinion

= = = = = = = =

Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source

= = = = = = = =

M/s. Venkateshwara Power Projects Ltd., M/s. The Ugar Sugar Works Ltd., M/s. EID Parry (India) Ltd., M/s. Sri Srivsgar Sugar & Agro Products Ltd. Versus Commissioner of Central Goods & Service Tax
Central Excise
2018 (11) TMI 913 – CESTAT BANGALORE – TMI
CESTAT BANGALORE – AT
Dated:- 13-11-2018
E/20986/2018; E/20988/2018; E/20453/2018 & E/20820/2018 – Final Order No: 21723 – 21726/2018
Central Excise
MR. S.S GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER
Mr. V.B. Gaikwad, Advocate, Mr. M. A. Nyalkalkar, Advocate For the Appellants
Mr. K. B. Nanaiah, Asst. Commissioner (AR), Mr. K. Murali, Superintendent (AR) For the Respondent
ORDER
Per: S.S GARG
These four appeals have been filed against the impugned order dated 22.12.2017 and 22.3.2018 wherein the Commissioner (A) has rejected the appeals of the appellants. Since the issue involved in all the four appeals is identical, therefore, all the four appeals are being disposed of by this common order.
2. For the sake of convenience,

= = = = = = = =

Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source

= = = = = = = =

due process, the Joint Commissioner vide Order-in-Original dated 28.2.2017 confirmed the demand for an amount of Rs. 55,65,810/- under Section 11A(1) of Central Excise Act, 1944 read with Rule 14 of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 and imposed penalty of Rs. 5,56,581/- under Rule 15(1) of the CENVAT Credit Rules and has also ordered for recovery of interest under Section 11AB of Central Excise Act. Being aggrieved by the said order, the appellant filed appeal before the Commissioner (A) and the Commissioner (A) has rejected the appeal vide the impugned orders. Hence, the present appeals.
3. Heard both the parties and perused the records.
4. Learned counsel appearing for the appellants submitted that the impugned order is not sustainable in law as the same is contrary to the statutory provision as well as contrary to the binding judicial precedents decided by the Tribunal and the High Court on this very issue. He further submitted that the Commissioner (A) has relied upon the Explanatio

= = = = = = = =

Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source

= = = = = = = =

y. But no justification, evidence or reasoning is provided in support of this bald allegation given in the show-cause notice itself. He further submitted that in the absence of any material evidence to show that the appellants have used common inputs or input services in the generation of electricity, then there is no question of application of provisions of Rule 6(2)/6(3) of CCR, 2004. He further submitted that even the amended provisions of Rule 6 will apply only when it is proved beyond doubt that the assessee has manufactured the dutiable as well as non-excisable / exempted goods by using common CEVAT credit availed on inputs and input services. Whereas in the present case, there is absolutely no evidence adduced to prove the use of common inputs or input services used in or in relation to the manufacture of dutiable goods and non-excisable electricity. Hence, the confirmation of demand for an amount of 6% of value of electricity is not tenable in law. He further submitted that thi

= = = = = = = =

Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source

= = = = = = = =

appeals is not tenable in law. He further submitted that the amended Rule 6 which is effective from 1.3.2015 is not applicable to bagasse. For this submission, he relied upon the following decisions:
* Simbhaoli Sugar Ltd. vs. CCE: 2018 (8) TMI 160
* Triveni Engineering & Industries Ltd. vs. CCE: 2018 (8) TMI 6
* Final Order No. A/89563-89568/17/SMB dt. 4.8.2017 passed by CESTAT, WZB, Mumbai in the case of M/s. Shivratna Udyog Ltd. & Ors.
* Final Order No. A/90456-90464/17/SMB dt. 27.10.2017 passed by CESTAT, WZB, Mumbai in the case of M/s. Athani Sugars Ltd. & Others.
4.2 Further, he relied upon the decision of Ganga Kishan Sahakari Chini Mills Ltd. vs. CCE: 2017 (346) ELT 450 wherein it has been held that in the absence of evidence about the common inputs/input services, the provision of Rule 6 of CCR, 2004 are not applicable. He also submitted that when it is impossible to maintain common inputs/input services, then the Department cannot demand 6% amount under Rule 6(3

= = = = = = = =

Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source

= = = = = = = =

he appellants are liable to reverse the credit, if any, taken on inputs/input services which have been used in the generation of electricity which have been sold to MSEB.
6. After considering the submissions of both the parties and perusal of the material on record, I find that the issue involved in the present appeals is no more res integra and has been settled by the decision of the Allahabad High Court in the case of Gularia Chini Mills cited supra which has been approved by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of UOI vs. M/s. DSCL Sugar Ltd. cited supra. Further, the Division Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Jakarya Sugars Ltd. cited supra has also considered the same issue and after relying upon the judgment of the Allahabad High Court in the case of Gularia Chini Mills has held that in the generation of electricity from bagasse, no other input or input service is used and therefore, the electrical energy is neither excisable under Section 2(d) of Central Excise Act, 1944 no

= = = = = = = =

Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source

= = = = = = = =