Taxindiaonline.com Taxindiaonline.com Taxindiainternational.com HRindiaonline.com
 
LOGIN
Forgot Password |  Register
Sunday , September 21, 2014 | Updated : Sep 21, 16:33 IST
Income Tax    Customs    Excise    Service Tax    FEMA    DGFT    SEZ    Misc    Pitara    Budget   
About Us Contact Us Advertise
Taxindiaonline.com Taxindiaonline.com Taxindiainternational.com
NEWS FLASH
 
G20 commits to enable DCs to expand revenue base & okays Common Reporting Standard for auto exchange of tax info (See 'Breaking News') Health Ministry to take up anti-noise pollution initiatives (See 'Mixed Buzz') Income tax - Whether when assessee fails to submit confirmations regarding meagre loss on account of share capital and unsecured loan at time of filing of return due to paucity of time, invocation of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) is warranted: ITAT (See '2014-TIOL-664') ST - Service in relation to Transmission & distribution of electricity - S 11C exemption notification is applicable in respect of tax which was 'not paid' - appellant not eligible to get refund of tax already paid: CESTAT (See 'Breaking News') UN affirms People's right to 'Imagine' and Live in Peace (See 'Mixed Buzz') CENVAT - Rule 6 - Waste products arising in course of manufacture of sugar such as bagasse, cannot be considered as final products, and, therefore, payment of a sum equal to 5%/6% of price of goods is not required to be made: CESTAT (See '2014-TIOL-1804') Govt revises guidelines for purchase of note book/laptop by Govt Departments (See 'MISC' in Pitara) Govt notifies 7% DA effective from 01.07.2014 (See 'MISC' in Pitara) 8th Amendment Rule - Renewal energy - depreciation - benefit extended (See 'IT Not' in What's New) Real Estate Regulator: Govt is against over-regulation; Bill to be moved in Rajya Sabha soon, says Naidu (See 'Breaking News') I-T - Whether when addition made on account of Sec 10A benefits were deleted by Tribunal in case of earlier AYs, a notice for reassessment survives even if there is time left to file an appeal: HC (See '2014-TIOL-1622') Nov 7 to be National Cancer Awareness Day; 11 lakh new patients joining 30 lakh cancer family annually: Minister (See 'Mixed Buzz') ST - Bench had asked Revenue to verify as to whether surety bond has been executed as per SC order - in response, CCE, Pune III submitted letter wherein confirmation sought is not forthcoming but many other useless information is reproduced - Matter adjourned: CESTAT (See 'Breaking News') Railways adds 18 trains on Ahmedabad-Katra route for festive season (See 'Mixed Buzz') I-T - Whether as per Sec 36(1)(viia), deduction allowable is to be restricted to actual amount of Provision made in books of account for bad and doubtful debts: ITAT (See '2014-TIOL-663') Real Estate Regulator: Govt is against over-regulation; Bill to be moved in Rajya Sabha soon, says Naidu (See 'Breaking News') ST - Bench had asked Revenue to verify as to whether surety bond has been executed as per Apex Court order - in response, CCE, Pune III submitted letter wherein confirmation sought is not forthcoming but many other useless information is reproduced - Matter adjourned: CESTAT (See 'Breaking News') China slaps USD 490 mn fine on Glaxo for bribing docs to promote drugs PM nominates Adil Zainulbhai as New Chairman of Quality Council of India India proposes to establish SAARC Centre for Good Governance CENVAT credit availed on Input Services used in or in relation to manufacturing activity at Pune factory has no nexus with rendering of output service of Renting of Immovable property in Mumbai: CESTAT (See 'Breaking News') Goods for AEW&C System Programme of Defence Ministry exempted upto 5th October + Sample fabric import at Nil rate – total length increased to 1000 m in a FY; Rice bran exempted till 1st April, 2015 (See 'What's New) Anti-dumping duty imposed on import of Sulphur Black from PR China (See Notification 41 in 'What's New) CX - Rebate on goods exported to overseas subsidiary - Delhi HC holds Revenue cannot restrict rebate on value u/s 4 - Market Price under condition 'e' of Notifn No 19/2004 is export market price - Not Indian Market price - Allows rebate of Rs 23 Cr to Dr Reddy's Labs (See 'Breaking News') Increasing time limit for availing CENVAT credit from 6 months to 1 year? (See 'DDT' Column) Income tax - Whether HC has discretion not to exercise its judicial review powers in writ petition filed by assessee, when conduct of assessee himself is tainted and doubtful - YES: HC (See 'Breaking News') Board Circular 984 dated 16/09/2014 - Para-wise comments (See 'Guest' Column) ST - As provision of telecommunication service to international roamers would amount to export of service, refund is permissible in law - Revenue's appeal dismissed: CESTAT (See 'Breaking News') CBDT hounds Retired Commissioner (See 'DDT') India, China ink 12 pacts; to receive USD 20 bn Chinese capital in five years CBEC notifies Modinagar ICD (See NT 86) CBEC notifies Customs exchange rates effective from Sept 19 (See NT 87 in ‘What’s New’) CBDT extends Advance Tax date from Sept 15 to Dec 15 for J & K PM to launch 'Make in India' drive on Sept 25 Xi Jinping is in Delhi; India, China to take relationships to new high, says Chinese President
 
Bookmark and Share
The Story of credit on endorsed bills of entry

OCTOBER 18, 2011

By Akella A S Prakasa Rao, B.E.(Hons), LLB

IN the past, when an importer took a call to divert the imported consignment, he could endorse on the reverse side of the bill of entry with an endorsement from the customs officer so that the job-worker or loan licensee who was going to make use of the imported materials could avail input credit on such Bill of Entry. This practice has been ratified by the Board vide Circular No.179/13/96-CX dated 29.02.1996, wherein it was inter-alia clarified that

"4. Where the imported goods are still in Customs dock area and the manufacturer/importer decides to divert/transfer the goods, a declaration by the manufacturer/importer can be made on the reverse of triplicate copy of Bill of Entry/duplicate copy of the Bill of Entry generated on EDI system by the manufacturer/importer that consignments are being delivered to the unit (name of the unit for availing credit and endorsed by the Proper Officer of Customs for enabling the manufacturing unit to avail credit."

The Circular held the field till the law laid down by Larger Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Balmer Lawrie& Co. Ltd Vs Commissioner, Kanpur 2002-TIOL-155-CESTAT-DEL-LB emerged to confuse the minds. In this case, the Larger Bench held as follows:

"20. The argument of the counsel that issuance of the invoice for clearing the goods by the manufacturer from the factory or by the dealer while transferring the goods is only a procedural condition of a technical nature and as such its breach must be held to be condonable, under the law, cannot be attached any legal value. The provisions of Rule 57G after amendment on the issuance of Notification No. 15/94, dated 30-3-1994 are mandatory in nature as the words used therein are that no credit shall be taken unless the inputs are received in the factory under the cover of an invoice issued under Rule 52A. The endorsement of the invoice had not at all be provided in this Rule. Only the issuance of invoice or invoices had been made permissible as is further evident from the wording of Rule 57GG and even statutory obligation has been imposed on the person issuing the invoice or invoices to maintain stock account in form RG 23D and to make entry in that register at the end of the day on receipt of inputs of excisable goods. It is not only a procedural technical condition so as to hold that its violation by making endorsement on the invoice by not maintaining the relevant record as required under Rule 57G or Rule 57GG referred to above, is condonable under the law. A distinction has to be made between a procedural condition of a technical nature and a substantive condition. It is the non-observance only of former which is condonable while that of later is not condonable as the same is likely to facilitate commission of fraud and introduce administrative inconvenience and misuse of the Modvat credit."

(Emphasis provided)

But, in an earlier case in Superpax India Limited Vs. CCE, New Delhi 2002-TIOL-475-CESTAT-DEL, it was held that by the Tribunal that by endorsement the nature of the bill of entry does not change and it continues to be a duty paying document eligible for availing input credit. The Tribunal continued to hold this view, as is evident in a subsequent case of CCE, New Delhi Vs. Bharat Wire Products 2002-TIOL-473-CESTAT-DEL . However, this view was overruled by the Larger Bench in the matter of BalmerLawrie cited supra. However, the decision in BalmerLawrie was distinguished by the various benches of the Tribunal as can be seen from the following decisions:

CCE, Jamshedpur Vs. TISCO 2002-TIOL-474-CESTAT-KOL

Jewel Brushes Pvt Ltd. Vs. CCE, Vadodara 2008-TIOL-2854-CESTAT-AHM

Soorajmull Baijnath Industries P. Ltd Vs. CCE, Gurgaon 2008-TIOL-2852-CESTAT-DEL

In the meanwhile, in the case of Khandelwal Laboratories Limited Vs. Commissioner 2005-TIOL-1692-CESTAT-MUM, the Tribunal while relying on the Larger Bench decision in the matter of BalmerLawrie held that CENVAT/MODVAT credit was not available on the basis of endorsed Bill of Entry as there was no declaration on the reverse of the Bill of Entry to the effect that the assessee (M/s. Khandelwal Laboratories Ltd.) would be availing credit and distinguished the decision given in CCE, Jamshedpur Vs. TISCO cited supra.

Basing on this judgment of the Tribunal and taking advantage of the Rule 9(1) of the CENVAT credit Rules, 2004 the departmental audits have disallowed the input credit availed on such endorsed bills of entry in several cases. However, the plea that as per Rule 9(1) of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 bill of entry is also a valid document and that there is no requirement anywhere in the law that it should be in the name of the person, who is actually receiving the goods for further processing and accordingly credit should be available to them, is falling on deaf ears. Fortunately, based on this very argument, the Mumbai High Court in Marmagoa Steel Limited Vs. UOI, 2005-TIOL-239-HC-MUM-CX held that in such instances credit cannot be denied to the assessee, in the process overruling the decision of Larger Bench in BalmerLawrie. The High Court observed:

"10. For availing the credit of duty, what is required to be established under Rule 57G is that the inputs received are in fact duty paid. The procedure set out in Rule 57G of the Central Excise Rules is to ensure that the credit is taken on the basis of duty paid documents. The bill of entry is one such document set out in Rule 57G. The said rule does not require that the bill of entry should be in the name of the person claiming credit of duty. It is not in dispute that the goods imported and cleared on payment of duty by one person can be used as inputs and credit of duty can be claimed by another person by establishing that the imported duty paid goods have been received as inputs and that the importer has not taken credit of that duty. In the present case, it is established that the duty paid goods are received as inputs, however, the credit is denied on the ground that the Bill of entry is not endorsed in the name of the appellant. Rule 57G does not require that for taking credit of duty, the bill of entry should be endorsed in the name of the claimant……… Thus, the appellant has established that the inputs received under the bills of entry were duty paid and, therefore, the authorities below were not justified in denying the credit of duty to the appellant. The two decisions relied upon by the Tribunal do not support the case of the revenue. In the case of Balmer Lawrie& Co. (supra), the issue was not relating to the endorsement on the bills of entry and, therefore, the said decision is distinguishable on facts. Similarly, the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Tata Iron & Steel Co. Ltd. (supra) is also distinguishable on facts as the said decision is based on erroneous concession made by the Counsel for the appellant therein, that in the case of BalmerLawrie& Co. it is held that the Modvat credit is not available on the basis of endorsed copies of bills of entry."

It may be noted that Supreme Court ratified the decision given by the Bombay High Court in Marmagoa Steel 2005-TIOL-239-HC-MUM-CX. Also, when M/s Khandelwal Laboratories appealed against the judgment of the Tribunal in the High Court of Bombay, the Bench comprising of Justice J.P. Devadhar and Justice R.M. Savant disposed of the case on 08.12.2010 by quashing the order of the Tribunal with a direction to reconsider the same in light of its decision given in Marmagoa Steel Ltd.

Therefore, it appears that the final word on this issue is the judgment of Bombay High Court in Marmagoa, which was also ratified by the Supreme Court. But the departmental authorities are still hanging on to the decision of the Larger Bench in BalmerLawrie and disallowing input credit availed on endorsed bills of entry even today. The authorities are of the view that the Tribunal on a direction from the High Court cannot overrule the earlier decision of a Larger Bench. Unfortunately, the authorities have completely ignored the judgment of Apex Court in Marmagoa Steel which ratified the decision of Bombay High Court wherein the judgment of Larger Bench was overruled (see the extract of the High Court judgment supra).

To set the matter to rest once and for all, the Board may issue a Circular in this regard on a pro-active basis to clarify and clear the confusion prevailing in the minds of the field officers especially from the audit wing. It is time to act, hope someone in the Board is listening there.

(The author is currently working in a 'Big 4' firm, and the views expressed are personal)


POST YOUR COMMENTS
   
 
 
TIOL SEARCH
 
TIOL Mobile App
TIOL Subscriptions
 All-In-One Package
 Indirect Tax Package
 Income Tax Package
<< More Packages>>
 
   
             
Income Tax Customs Excise Service Tax FEMA DGFT SEZ Misc Pitara Budget
  • Notifications
  • Circulars
  • SC Cases
  • HC Cases
  • ITAT Cases
  • Instructions
  • Advance Ruling
  • Settlement
  • Other Case
  • Directorate of Income Tax (Systems)
  • Tariff Notfn
  • Non Tariff Notfn
  • Circulars
  • SC Cases
  • HC Cases
  • Cestat Cases
  • Settlement
  • Advance Ruling
  • Safeguard Duty Notfn
  • Anti-dumping Notfn
  • Drawback Cases
  • Tariff Notfn
  • Non Tariff Notfn
  • Circulars
  • SC Cases
  • HC Cases
  • Cestat Cases
  • Settlement
  • Advance Ruling
  • Excise Amendment
  • Clean Energy Cess Notfn
  • MISC Circulars
  • 37B Order
  • Commr.(A) Order
  • CESTAT
  • Notifications
  • Circulars
  • SC Cases
  • HC Cases
  • Cestat Cases
  • Miscellaneous
  • Advance Ruling
  • FAQ
  • Finance Act, 1994
  • Commr. (A) Orders
  • 37B Order
  • Removal of Difficulty
  • VCES
  • Accounting Head
  • Exchange Manual
  • Fema Notifications
  • SC Cases
  • HC Cases
  • RBI Notifications
  • Act
  • Rules
  • Regulations
  • Master Circulars
  • RBI Circulars
  • Notifications
  • Circulars
  • Public Notices
  • Trade Notice
  • FTDR Amendment 2010
  • MISC
  • State Acts
  • Notifications
  • Instructions
  • Act 2005
  • Rules 2006
  • DGEP
  • State Policy
  • SC Cases
  • HC Cases
  • VAT Cases
  • Deputation Posts
  • Service News
  • The Insider
  • Transfer
  • Promotion
  • Recruitment Rules
  • Transfer Policy
  • Training Circulars
  • Service Cases
  • MISC
  • Pay Commission
  • Cadre Review
  • Budget Circular 2013-14
  • Union Budgets
  • Economic Surveys
  • Budget Speeches
  • Finance Acts
  • Finance Bill
  • TRU - D. O. Letter
  • A Taxindiaonline Website. Copyright © 2014 Taxindiaonline.com Pvt.Ltd. All rights reserved. | Powered by 4th Dimension