News Update

GST - Neither SCN nor the order spell out the reasons for retrospective cancellation of registration, hence cannot be sustained: HCGST - Non-application of mind - If reply was unsatisfactory, details could have been sought - Record does not reflect that such exercise was done - Matter remitted: HCGST - Merely because a taxpayer has not filed returns for some period does not mean that registration is required to be cancelled with retrospective date also covering the period when returns were filed and taxpayer was compliant: HCGST - Petitioner's reply, although terse, is not taken into account while passing assessment orders - Petitioner put on terms, another opportunity provided: HCUnveil One Nation; One Debt Code; One Compliance Rule for Centre & StatesChina moves WTO against US tax subsidies for EVs & renewable energyMore on non-doms - The UK Spring Budget 2024 (See TII Edit)Notorious history-sheeter Mukhtar Ansari succumbs to cardiac arrest in UP jailTraining Program for Cambodian civil servants commences at MussoorieNY imposes USD 15 congestion taxCBIC revises tariff value of edible oils, gold & silver45 killed as bus races into ravine in South AfricaCBIC directs all Customs offices to remain open on Saturday & SundayBankman-Fried jailed for 25 yrs in FTX scamI-T- Once the citizen deposits the tax upon coming to know of his liability, it cannot be said that he has deliberately or willfully evaded the depositing of tax and interest in terms of Section 234A can be waived: HCHouthis attack continues in Red Sea; US military shoots down 4 dronesI-T- Secured creditor has priority charge over secured asset, over claims of I-T Department & other Departments; any excess amount recovered by Secured Creditor from auction of secured asset, over & above the dues payable to it, are to be remitted to the Departments: HCFederal Govt hands out USD 60 mn to rebuild collapsed bridge in BaltimoreI-T - Receipts of sale of scrap being part & parcel of activity and being proximate thereto would also be within ambit of gains derived from industrial undertaking for purpose of computing deduction u/s 80-IB: HCCanadian School Boards sue social media titans for 4 bn Canadian dollar in damagesI-T - Once assssee on year of reversal has paid taxes on excess provision and similar feature appeared in earlier years and assesee had payments for liquidated damages on delay of deliverables, no adverse inference can be drawn: HCFormer IPS officer Sanjiv Bhatt jailed for 20 yrs for planting drugs to frame lawyerST - Software development service & IT-enabled service provided by assessee was exempt from tax during relevant period, by virtue of CBEC's Notification & Circular; demands raised for such period not sustainable: CESTATUN says Households waste across world is now at least one billion meals a dayCus - Order rejecting exporter's request for conversion of Shipping Bills on grounds that the same has been made by exporter beyond period of three months from date of Let Export Order in terms of CBEC Circular No. 36/2010-Cus : CESTATIndia, China hold fresh dialogue for complete disengagement on Western borders: MEACus - No Cess is payable when Basic Customs Duty is found to be Nil: CESTATThakur says India is prepared for 2036 OlympicsCX - As per settled law, a right acquired as result of a statutory provision, cannot be taken away retrospectively unless said statutory provision so provides or by necessary implication has such effect: CESTAT
 
CX – Mixed questions of fact and law are capable of being properly resolved in appellate remedies available under CEA - Petitions disposed of: HC

By TIOL News Service

MUMBAI, JAN 23, 2017: PETITIONS have been filed praying for issuance of a writ of certiorari in relation to an order-in-original dated 16th September 2016, of the Dy. Commr. CE&ST, LTU, Mumbai.

Background: The order of CESTAT was set aside and it was held that the product "clinker" which was captively consumed is covered by this Excise Notification [67/95-CE]. It is based on the final order of the Supreme Court that the claim for refund was laid. It was stated that duty was paid on captively consumed clinker. The petitioner pointed out the details of availment of cenvat credit during the period under reference on a purely protective basis as claimed and the payments of duty under protest. The declaration was that no refund on this account has been claimed / received earlier. It is also declared that the duty in respect of which refund has been claimed has not been charged to nor realised from any customers or from any other person and hence it is refundable only to the petitioners in terms of the proviso to section 11B (2) of the Central Excise Act, 1944.

The order of the Dy. Commissioner sanctions a refund of Rs.652,41,66,464/- but directs that this sum shall be credited to the Consumer Welfare Fund since the same is held to be hit by unjust enrichment. Similar is the fate of another refund claim of Rs.276,68,53,222/-.

The ASG raised a preliminary objection that given the nature of the findings and which are purely factual or, in any event, factual and legal, a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India should not ordinarily be entertained. Inasmuch as since the refund claim is rejected by the Deputy Commissioner and there are multiple remedies to challenge this order,the High Court should not entertain the writ petition(s).

The petitioners justified the writ petitions by relying upon a host of case laws viz. Suvidhe Limited - 2003-TIOL-188-HC-MUM-CX, Finacord Chemicals (India) Limited = 2015-TIOL-104-SC-CUS,Allied Photographics (India) Limited = 2004-TIOL-27-SC-CX , Aircel Limited - 2016-TIOL-90-SC-CT, where it is inter alia held that when there are pure questions of law they could be gone into in writ jurisdiction.

After considering the elaborate submissions made, the High Court extracted the provisions of section 11B of the CEA, 1944 and inter alia observed -

++ We are of the opinion that the findings rendered by the Deputy Commissioner are not only by considering some legal aspect which may arise during the course of dealing with factual matters and brought before him. These are findings rendered purely on the correctness of the approach of the petitioner-manufacturer. The basis on which the claim was made, the maintenance of accounts and practices prevailing in the market and particularly amongst manufacturers of cement are all referred to with a view to ascertain whether there is substantiation by the petitioner of its claim that it has not passed on the liability or incidence of duty on to the consumer.

++ It is in relation to that, that the parties entered into detailed correspondence and produced voluminous documents. That is how the contents thereof have been analysed. They may not have been analysed strictly in accordance with the prevailing legal principles, according to the petitioners and emerging from precedents. They may or may not have been correctly applied, but surely this is not a matter which we can hold as raising only pure questions of law.

++ This is not an issue which we can decide only by considering whether any erroneous test of law has been applied. We will have to go into all the factual aspects and then alone find out which legal principle has application and the one that is applied was not applicable or otherwise. It is not that as an absolute proposition of law that the impugned order holds that assessee like the petitioners can avail of the refund provided a particular treatment is given in the accounts and essentially in the Profit & Loss Account. It is not whether the same has to be reflected only as receivable and there is no requirement to show that as a debit or a liability in the columns in that regard that has gone into consideration in the case before us. There are various principles of accounting and which have been invoked and applied, may be, according to the petitioners, erroneously. However, we do not think that such factual matters can be resolved by us in our limited jurisdiction and when it is not disputed that the alternate remedies are equally efficacious.

++ Once we have seen that this is not a case entirely based on refund of amounts deposited as pre deposit but there was a blend or mix of such sums with the amount paid under protest, then, all the more we do not think that the judgments on the point of a writ being maintainable despite availability of alternate efficacious remedy would be applicable in the facts of this case.

++ We are mindful of the fact that availability of an alternate equally efficacious remedy is not an absolute bar in entertaining a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. It is not a prohibition but a rule of caution and prudence. Eventually everything must depend on facts and circumstances in each case.

++ We are of the opinion that these petitions cannot be entertained on the ground that there are factual issues involved. The mixed questions of fact and law are, therefore, capable of being properly resolved in the appellate remedies available to the petitioners under the scheme of the Central Excise Act.

The High Court also clarified that it has not expressed any opinion on the factual and legal controversy or for that matter on the merits of the refund claim and they are all kept open.

The Writ petitions were disposed of.

(See 2017-TIOL-162-HC-MUM-CX)


POST YOUR COMMENTS
   

AR not Afar by SK Rahman

TIOL Tube Latest

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




Shri M C Joshi, Former Chairman, CBDT




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