SIGN IN SUBSCRIBE

News Update

Nexus between Election Manifesto and Budget 2024 in July!Clearing the Air: Airtel's SC Decision provides clarity on test of AgencyGST implications for Corporate Debtor under IBCI-T- Petitioner's CIBIL score lowered due to same PAN being issued to another assessee who defaulted on loan; I-T Deptt to inform CIBIL of remedial measures taken: HCBrazil’s proposal to tax super-rich globally finds many takers in G20 GroupI-T- Additions framed on account of unconfirmed cash loans upheld in part, where assessee is unable to discharge onus of proving source of cash deposits : ITATCPM manifesto promising annihilation of all weapons of mass destructions including nuclear, draws flak from Defence MinisterI-T- Registration of trust u/s 12A denied due to inadvertent error by assessee in filing Form 10AB but with wrong selection code; case remanded for reconsideration: ITATBiden favours higher steel tariff on ‘cheating’ China + may up tariff on dominant solar tech suppliersI-T- Enhancement of income is not sustainable if CIT (A) not follow sec 251 and no notice given to assessee of enhancement : ITATUS Poll: Biden trumps Trump in money race by USD 75 mnI-T- Assessee is entitled for depreciation on goodwill arising out of difference between cost of acquisition and net value of assets and liabilities as per book value of CAPL : ITATNetanyahu says Israel to decide how and when to respond to Iran’s aggressionI-T- There is no scope of extrapolation in search assessment based solely on assumptions and surmises in absence of any tangible material qua the relevant assessment year: ITATGoogle slays costs by laying off staffers & shifting roles outside USI-T- Re-assessment cannot be sustained where based on borrowed satisfaction & where conducted in a mechanical manner: ITATHeavy downpours drown Dubai; Airport issues travel advisoryCus - There cannot be an exercise of jurisdiction to injunct invocation of BG, as it is a settled principle of law that bank guarantee constitutes an independent contract between the bank and the party in whose favour BG is furnished: HCHM pledges to make India completely Maoist-freeGST - Except for holding that the taxpayer had availed ITC which is blocked credit u/s 17(5), no reasons are specified - Order set aside and matter remanded: HCMicrosoft to inject USD 1.5 bn in AI Group G42 of UAEGST - Injustice would be caused unless petitioner is provided another opportunity to contest tax demand on merits - Subject to deposit of 10% of demand, matter is remanded: HCCanadian budget proposes more taxes on higher income groups & tax credits for EVsGST - Petitioner has an appellate remedy against the impugned order - As petition was filed within the original period of limitation, it is just and appropriate that petitioner be permitted to present statutory appeal: HCWorld leaders appeal for quick ratification of UN Ocean TreatyGST - Once the notification itself has been declared as ultra vires, applying it would amount to applying an illegal notification: HCUK House debates ban on smokingGST - Transfer of development rights is amenable to GST and cannot be brought within the purview of Entry 5 of Schedule-III: HCGlobal economy to grow at 3.2% in current year and also 2025: IMFGST - Challenge to notification 11/2017-CTR clarifying the aspect of transfer of development rights being attracted to GST/TGST is devoid of merits: HCGreat Barrier Reef in Australia suffers serious bleachingGST - Conclusions were recorded in the assessment order without providing a personal hearing - Order set aside and matter remanded: HCUS to impose fresh sanctions on Iran’s missile programmeCus - Mere fact that Commissioner of Customs has filed an affidavit would not denude an officer, otherwise empowered under the Act/Rules to issue and adjudicate a SCN even though the officer may be below the rank of Commissioner: HCDelhi Police nabs woman for thieving luxury SUVsCus - As wife of appellant has already been penalized for the offence related to importation of BMW M5 Car, no reason found to impose penalty against appellant for same offence: CESTAT
 
Is CENVAT credit on transit sale allowed only if made through Registered dealer?

APRIL 14, 2015

By Chirayu Kothi, Advocate

THE Budget notification 8/2015-CE(NT) dated 01.03.2015, inter alia, inserted the following third proviso in sub-rule 2 of rule 11 of CER, 2002.

Provided also that if the goods are directly sent to any person on the direction of the registered dealer, the invoice shall also contain the details of the registered dealer as the buyer and the person as the consignee, and that person shall take CENVAT credit on the basis of the registered dealer's invoice:

This proviso is giving many sleepless nights to manufacturers and dealers alike. The question troubling them is as to how this proviso is to be interpreted while reading the same with the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004, rule 9 in particular.

Consider this - The manufacturers procure their raw materials from various sources - directly from the suppliers' factory or through a dealer, registered or otherwise, or any other person engaged in trading of the such goods.

Earlier, in case of a transaction entered with an unregistered dealer, the unregistered dealer issued only a commercial invoice and CENVAT credit was availed on the strength of manufacturers' invoice.

Due to the proviso, reproduced above, added in Rule 11 CER 2002 w.e.f01/03/2015, it seems that if the manufacturer procures raw materials through an unregistered dealer, they will not be entitled to avail CENVAT credit on inputs.

Nonetheless, the fact of the matter is that taking of Cenvat Credit is on basis of manufacturer's invoice and which is a prescribed document mentioned in rule 9(1) of Cenvat Credit Rules 2004 itself.

It seems that the amendment made in the third  proviso  to Rule 11(2) of Central Excise Rules 2002 was only for the purpose of allowing a facility to registered dealer to reduce transport/freight costs, as earlier he was required to bring the goods in his depot/godown before effecting a sale.

But an unintentional interpretation seems to have emerged by this amendment. Inasmuch as the jurisdictional authorities are threatening to deny CENVAT credit availed on the basis of supplier manufacturers' invoices when these goods are directly sent to the assessee manufacturer on the direction of the ‘dealer' on the ground that the said dealer who places such an order is not a "REGISTERED dealer".

It is obvious that in an effort to go along with the ‘Ease of doing business' concept, the Central Government made an amendment to rule 11(2) but what is actually being translated by the field formations is exactly the opposite.

It would be in the fitness of things that the CBEC comes out with a clarificatory Circular at the earliest before SCNs start flying in all directions and makes a mockery of the National Litigation Policy which aims at reducing litigation.

( DISCLAIMER : The views expressed are strictly of the author and Taxindiaonline.com doesn't necessarily subscribe to the same. Taxindiaonline.com Pvt. Ltd. is not responsible or liable for any loss or damage caused to anyone due to any interpretation, error, omission in the articles being hosted on the sites)

 


 RECENT DISCUSSION(S) POST YOUR COMMENTS
   
 
Sub: Good one

Good analysis and a important relevant point is raised. Keep it up.

Posted by Pritam Mahure
 
Sub: Dealer invoice - registration for all

Thanks for highlighting the live burning issue

We have become expert in doubting law makers’ intention to give relief. May be due to our past experience where intention has not been properly worded in rules, notifications etc.

My view is as under

1.It is a beneficial provision given to First Stage & Second Stage Dealers who have to receive goods physically for issuance of CENVATTABLE invoice as of 28.02.2015

2.Rule 9 of CCR speaks about eligible documents for CENVAT credit. In sub-rule (2) of the said rule it has been made mandatory that the document should contain all the particulars as per CER. If we go to Rule 11(2) of CER one can find that ‘consignee’ as mentioned in the eligible document can take credit

3.In addition to the consignee, Government wanted to allow ‘buyer’ also to take credit by sending materials directly to job worker. Hence the newly added second proviso to Rule 11(2) of CER

4.In the same line relaxation has been provided for ‘Registered dealers’ also by incorporating third proviso to Rule 11(2) of CER

5.It is not restricting manufacturers' invoice ineligible for credit or requiring all unregistered dealers to go for registration

I invite learned readers to share their view points

Posted by
G. Mani

Posted by govindan_mani govindan_mani
 
Sub: Ultra vires to the main provision

Hi,

It seems that the last line of insertion (I.e Cenvat Credit to be taken on the basis of such registered dealer invoice) made in Rule 11 is ultra vires to the main Rule.

Rule 11 talks about goods to be removed on the basis of invoice. Sub-Rule (2) prescribes the details to be mentioned in the invoice.

Accordingly, the aforesaid amendment in relation to the basis of taking cenvat credit in Rule 11(2) would be Ultra vires to the main Rule 11(2). The correct place where the said amendment was supposed to be incorporated should be Rule 9 of Cenvat Rules.

Regards,
Satish Bhanushali

Posted by PricewaterHouse Coopers
 
Sub: No registration required for unregistered dealers

My view is that the above amendment has been made so as to tap the irregularities at the hands of first/second stage dealers. That is if the actual customer purchases goods through a registered dealer from a manufacturer then as per the earlier provision, the actual customer could avail credit on the manufacturer's invoice and thereafter the registered dealer could have issued invoice to some other manufacturer for the purpose of passing on fake cenvat credit.

Thus, to avoid passing on of fake cenvat credit, this amendment has been made. And since, the credit cannot be passed on by any unregistered dealer, therefore, the above amendment is not applicable to unregistered dealer.



Posted by Rakshit Verma
 
Sub: 'Bill to Ship to' would continue

Hello,

My view is that the amendment is more clarificatory and beneficial in nature. Post this amendment, the registered dealer would need to issue invoice to enable buyer to avail CENVAT credit.

However, the Bill to Ship to ('BTST') model would continue wherein the consignee (i.e. Ship to party) would be eligible to avail CENVAT credit on the basis of excise invoice issued by the supplier and the intermidiate buyer (i.e. Bill to party) would not be issuing any excise invoice as it is non-registered dealer.

Regards
Amit Jaiswal

Posted by PricewaterHouse Coopers
 « More Discussions »

TIOL Tube Latest

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

TOP NEWS

AR not Afar by SK Rahman

VISION 360





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

TII LATEST

TIOLCORPLAWS LATEST