|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 281 to 300 of 1482 Records
-
2023 (6) TMI 1202
Import of Accompanied Baggage - Carrying foreign currency beyond permissible limit - Rejection of revision application filed by the petitioner under Section 129DD of the Customs Act, 1962 - petitioner had failed to substantiate his claim by submitting any evidence in support of the grounds in appeal or not - petitioner was put to notice as per the provisions of Section 102 of the Customs Act or not - HELD THAT:- The petition deserves to be dismissed as this is a case of concurrent findings of all the authorities below, and that the findings of the facts ought not to be interfered by this Court in exercise of its jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution.
Having perused the record, none of the contentions as urged on behalf of the petitioner are accepted. The jurisdiction of this Court under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution to interfere in the impugned orders would be very limited namely to examine whether there is any patent perversity and illegality in the orders passed by the authorities below. This Court in exercise of such jurisdiction would not re-appreciate evidence to come to a conclusion different from what has been arrived at by the authorities on appreciation of facts and/or on consideration of materials.
Petition dismissed.
-
2023 (6) TMI 1201
Amendment of shipping bill - joint meeting had taken between the officers of the Customs Department and Director General of Foreign Trade and not only the issue regarding the petitioner therein has been resolved but the changes in the software system have been brought about - HELD THAT:- The learned Counsel who appears for Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 states that the Customs Department has amended the shipping bill and the same is forwarded to the Director General of Foreign Trade (DGFT) and the necessary action will be taken by the DGFT. The learned Counsel for the Petitioner states that, in view of this development, the cause raised in this Petition stands redressed.
The Writ Petition is accordingly disposed of.
-
2023 (6) TMI 1200
Finalization of provisional assessment (at higher side) - Valuation - import of old and used ships/vessels for breaking purpose - existence of allegation or evidence of extra consideration having been paid to the seller over and above the declared value or not - HELD THAT:- It can be seen from clause 1 of the MOA dated 28.7.2011, that parties have agreed a lump sum purchase price of USD 5,815,747; there is no reference to LDT made for arriving at the purchase price by the parties to the agreement, in other words purchase price agreed between the parties is not in proportion to the LDT. Further, it is not the case of revenue that any consideration over and above the agreed purchase price has been paid by the importer to the foreign seller. Revenue has sought to assess higher duty only on the basis of commercial invoice submitted vide letter dated 4.7.2011 wherein details of additional LDT of 401.323 MT is mentioned. There is otherwise no corroboration whether LDT mentioned in the MOA and survey report is inclusive of 401.323 MT or otherwise.
It is observed that parties have agreed upon a lump sum price of USD 5,815,747 for the ship as a whole and absent any allegation or evidence of extra consideration having been made by the importer over and above the said price, transaction value as declared by the importer has to be accepted. Lower authorities clearly erred in loading the assessable value entirely based on the LDT when the LDT is irrelevant for assessment of duty. The said issue is already decided by this Tribunal in the decision of JRD. INDUSTRIES VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, JAMNAGAR [2010 (8) TMI 437 - CESTAT, AHMEDABAD], where it has been held that LDT gained importance for the period prior to 2003 and was required to be correctly arrived at, as duty was ad valorem + Rs 1400/- per Light Displacement Tonnage. In the present case the duty is not relatable to LDT. The memo of agreement arrived at between the two parties also does not refer to any fact showing that the price of the ship is proportionate to LDT of the said ship.
The impugned order cannot be sustained and appeal of the appellant is required to be allowed.
-
2023 (6) TMI 1199
Constitution of CoC with a single Operational Creditor (can be done or not) - Seeking dismissal of the CIRP - the Company struck off for non-filing of the financial statements - HELD THAT:- This Tribunal is of the earnest view that there is no provision in the Code for the Corporate Debtor to constitute the CoC with a single Operational Creditor, when it is seen from the record that despite the public announcement being made inviting claims from its stakeholders, the Appellant has not received a single Claim from the date of initiation of the Corporate Debtor into CIRP. As the CoC itself is not constituted and in the light of the fact that not a single Claim was received by the IRP even after the public announcement, as well as the fact that the Corporate Debtor Company has been struck off from the Registrar of Companies, this Tribunal is of the considered view that the CIRP may be closed with respect to the subject company.
The order of the Adjudicating Authority is set aside and the Company is released from all rigors of CIRP - Appeal allowed.
-
2023 (6) TMI 1198
Levy of Service Tax - IPR Service - royalty paid by the appellant-assessee under the agreement - HELD THAT:- The only issue involved in the present case relates to levy of service tax on payment of royalty/fee on transfer of technical know-how and the same has been considered by the Tribunal in various cases and has consistently held that know-how is not an IPR within the meaning of service tax law and consequently its transfer is not liable to service tax.
Further, Circular No. 80/10/2004- ST dated 17.09.2004 have clarified the scope of taxable entry.
In M/S. MUNJAL SHOWA LIMITED VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE & ST, DELHI (GURGAON) AND (VICE-VERSA) [2017 (6) TMI 819 - CESTAT CHANDIGARH] it was held that Revenue as it has been clarified that the taxable service include only such Intellectual Property Rights except Copyright that are prescribed under the law for the time being in force, as the term ‘time being in force’ implies that, as are applicable in India, and Intellectual Property rights covered under Indian law in force alone are chargeable to service tax and Intellectual Property Rights like Integrated Circuits or Undisclosed Information would not cover under the taxable services. Admittedly, Trade Mark rights which have been used by the appellant-assessee are not registered in India, therefore, the same are not liable to tax under IPR service.
After taking into consideration, the ratios of various decisions and also the Circular dated 17.09.2004, it is held that the appellant assessee is not liable to pay service tax under IPR service, under Section 65 (105) (zzr) of the Finance Act, 1994.
Further, it is found that the findings in the impugned order holding that deduction under Notification No. 17/2004-ST dated 10.09.2004 is available only to service tax paid under Section 66 and not as reverse charge under Section 66A is also contrary to the decision of the Tribunal in the case of M/S ROCHEM SEPARATION SYSTEMS (INDIA) PVT LTD VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF SERVICE TAX, MUMBAI-I [2015 (1) TMI 1052 - CESTAT MUMBAI].
Extended period of limitation - HELD THAT:- The extended period cannot be invoked as the appellant-assessee has a bonafide belief that they are not liable to pay service tax on acquisition of know-how. Moreover, the issue relates to interpretation and hence intention to evade tax cannot be inferred.
Appeal allowed.
-
2023 (6) TMI 1197
Levy of Service Tax - banking and other financial services (BOFS) - Body corporate - corporate guarantee commission received by the respondent for providing corporate guarantees for their subsidiary company PT Jindal Stainless Indonesia (Jindal Indonesia) - export of services or not - HELD THAT:- The respondent does not fit in the definition of body corporate because they are not engaged in providing banking services and this issue has been clarified by the board circular dated 04.07.2006 wherein it has been clarified that the word ‘any other person” in Section 65(105)(zm) has to be read with principle of ejusdem generis with the preceding words.
Further, in the case of M/S BANSWARA SYNTEX VERSUS CCE, JAIPUR [2009 (7) TMI 85 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI], the Tribunal while considering the similar issue of whether release of land building as well as machinery would only come under banking and other financial services or otherwise it was held that such amount received as lease rent would not be covered under Section 105 of banking and other Financial Services in the Finance Act, 1994.
Since the services in question has been rendered outside India, the same is not taxable as they qualify as export of services in terms of rule 3 of export of service Rules, 2004.
Extended period of Limitation - HELD THAT:- The whole issue relates to interpretation of the law because the Department was not certain of the taxability of the impugned services and the definition of banking and financial service was changed from time to time. Hence the extended period cannot be invoked and by that entire demand is barred by limitation as the demand pertains to the period 2005-2008 whereas the show cause notice was issued on 24.09.2010 which is beyond the normal period of limitation.
There is no infirmity in the impugned order passed by the Ld. Commissioner - Appeal dismissed.
-
2023 (6) TMI 1196
Refund of the service tax paid - export of goods - agreement/contract or any other documents with Commission Agents located outside India not provided - Services of Inland Transportation.
Rejection of refund on the ground that the appellant has not provided any agreement/contract or any other documents with Commission Agents located outside India - exemption under N/N. 41/2007 - HELD THAT:- The appellant has produced the confirmation of the contract which clearly shows the payment of commission at a fixed rate on the FOB Value of the export and this issue has been settled by the Tribunal in the case of MITTAL INTERNATIONAL VERSUS CCE, ROHTAK/GURGAON [2017 (3) TMI 1512 - CESTAT CHANDIGARH], where it was held that if the invoice of the commission agent is on record, in that circumstance, the appellants have complied with condition of the notification and the appellant is entitled for availing the refund - refund allowed.
Rejection of refund in relation to the claim for Service Tax paid on Services of Inland Transportation - HELD THAT:- This issue has also been considered by the Tribunal in the case of M/S. CAP & SEAL (INDORE) PVT. LTD. VERSUS CCE, INDORE [2016 (12) TMI 1132 - CESTAT NEW DELHI] wherein the Tribunal has specifically held that the service tax paid on transportation of empty container from port to factory is admissible as refund - refund allowed on this issue.
Refund also rejected on the ground that the service providers are not registered for the Services such as CHA/Port Services - HELD THAT:- This issue has also been considered by the Hon’ble Rajasthan High Court in the case of UNION OF INDIA THROUGH THE COMMISSIONER, CENTRAL EXCISE AND SERVICE TAX, UDAIPUR VERSUS M/S. ARIHANT TILES AND MARBLES (P) LTD. [2019 (1) TMI 73 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT] wherein it has been held that the Registration under a particular service is not necessary for the purpose of exemption under Notification No. 41/2007 - refund allowed.
The impugned order is not sustainable in law - Appeal allowed.
-
2023 (6) TMI 1195
Non-payment of Service Tax - providing Custom House Agent (CHA) and freight forwarding services - Air freight commission - Sea freight commission - Service Charges - Documentation charges - airport/port truck charges - other direct reimbursements - reverse charge mechanism - extended period of limitation.
Air Freight Commission - It is the contention of the Appellant that this service was rendered in connection with export of goods and therefore, no service tax will be leviable on such services - HELD THAT:- The services rendered by the Appellant were related to export of goods and hence there is no liability of service tax on the commission received from the airlines in connection with the goods exported - this view has been held in Robinson Air Services Vs. CCE, Delhi [2016 (10) TMI 680 - CESTAT NEW DELHI] that demand will not be upheld in such issue - the demand confirmed in the impugned order on this count is not sustainable.
Service charges - HELD THAT:- Even though the Appellant has contested the issue earlier, they are not contesting it now and paid the service tax on these service charges collected. Hence, the demand confirmed in the impugned order on this count is upheld.
Documentation charges - handling charges - DO charges and other direct reimbursements - HELD THAT:- The Appellant had produced sample invoices and after verifying the same the adjudicating authority has accepted their contention in respect of those 40 entries in the order-in-original. The appellant stated that since the data is huge and bulky, from the year 2002-03 to 2006-07, they requested the Adjudicating Authority to depute an officer to the Appellant’s premises to verify the remaining invoices, in case he has any doubt about the nature of reimbursements in respect of the remaining entries and submitted a worksheet containg all reimbursements. This fact has been recorded in the impugned order by the adjudicating authority . Therefore, it is not open to the Adjudicating Authority to confirm the demand on the ground that all invoices have not been produced.
The issue as to whether reimbursable expenses are liable to be taxed or not is settled by the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of UOI Vs. Intercontinental Consultants and Technocrats Pvt. Ltd., [2018 (3) TMI 357 - SUPREME COURT] wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court has affirmed the decision of the Delhi High Court striking down Rule 5(1) of the Valuation Rules, 2006, which provides for inclusion of expenditure or costs incurred by the service provider in the course of providing taxable service in the value, as ultra vires - As the issue has already been settled by the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court, the demand confirmed on the reimbursable expenses in the impugned order is not sustainable.
Pickup charges - HELD THAT:- It is observed from the Show Cause Notice that the transportation charges and loading unloading charges were referred to as pick up charges in the Notice. In the earlier Order-in-Original dated 31.01.2009, the adjudicating authority has dropped the demand for the period prior to 01.01.2005 and has allowed abatement of 75% under GTA services - the demand of service tax on these charges have been made in the Notice under CHA service. There is no liability of service tax under CHA service on these charges. Accordingly, the demand confirmed in the impugned order is beyond the scope of the Notice and accordingly hold that the demand on this count is not sustainable.
Income from M/s GE Industrial Ltd. - amounts recovered from GE Industrial Ltd., for clearing and forwarding - HELD THAT:- The Notice has proposed to levy service tax on these charges under the category of C&F agency services. The OIO has confirmed the levy under CHA services. Thus, the impugned order has travelled beyond the Show Cause Notice and hence the demand confirmed on this count is not sustainable.
Time limitation - HELD THAT:- The Notice was issued on 17.10.2017, by invoking the extended period. As there was no suppression involved, the demands confirmed by invoking the extended period not sustainable, the Appellant has been discharging service tax with respect to the service charges received - There is no suppression involved in this case and hence extended period not in-vocable. Hence, the demands confirmed by invoking the extended period in the impugned order are not sustainable.
Appeal allowed in part.
-
2023 (6) TMI 1194
Reversal of pro-rata CENVAT Credit - short receipt of the processed inputs from the premises of the job workers - Rule 4(5)(a) of the CCR - HELD THAT:- The wastage/scrap generated in the course of job work, being less than 10% for PP Granules and 5% for LLDPE Granules was within the prescribed SION norms and the existence of such wastage/scrap in the process of conversion is provided for not only in the Work Orders but also in the permission conferred by the Jurisdictional Commissioner under Rule 4(6) of the CCR. Further, the claim of the Appellant that the job worker had discharged duty on the waste/scrap at the time of his clearance is also supported by job work Challans, excise Invoice besides the Order dated 9 June 2006 passed by the Assistant Commissioner in the connected proceedings.
The issue involved herein is also covered by the decision of this Tribunal in EMCO LTD. VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, MUMBAI-III [2007 (11) TMI 108 - CESTAT, MUMBAI] where it was held that supplier can not be held liable on the ground that the worker had not discharged duty liability on impugned waste and scrap.
Irrespective of whether the job worker had discharged the duty liability on the scrap generated at hisend, the duty liability cannot be fastened on the principal manufacturer/supplier of inputs.
Appeal allowed.
-
2023 (6) TMI 1193
Default in making fortnightly payment - facility of paying duty fortnightly under the provisions of Rule 173G(1) was withdrawn from the Appellant - duty not paid in terms of Rule 8 of Central Excise Rules, 2002 - revenue neutrality - HELD THAT:- The impugned orders were passed by the Ld. Adjudicating authority on 28.02.2013. Whereas the Hon’ble Gujarat High Court decision in the matter of INDSUR GLOBAL LTD. VERSUS UNION OF INDIA & 2 [2014 (12) TMI 585 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT] decided on 27.11.2014.
Therefore, the matter is remanded to the adjudicating authority to decide the case afresh in view of the Hon’ble Gujarat High Court’s decision in the case of Indsur Global Limited after giving an opportunity of personal hearing to the appellant - All the appeals are allowed by way of remand to the adjudicating authority.
-
2023 (6) TMI 1192
Excisability - RFG, an intermediate excisable goods - cleared without payment of duty for job work under Rule 4(5)(a) of the CCR for conversion into electricity/steam and return thereof for use in the manufacture of dutiable final products or not - HELD THAT:- This Tribunal in the Appellant’s own case in HALDIA PETROCHEMICALS LTD. VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF C. EX., HALDIA [2005 (1) TMI 306 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI] had dropped the demand of duty on the removal of another intermediate product i.e. ‘CLS’ cleared to M/s. HPLCL during the period November 2000 to October 2002 under Rule 4(5)(a) of the CCR for generation of steam and electricity which were received back by the Appellant and used in the manufacture of final products.
The issue involved in the present case is on the same lines and the only difference is that in the said case the partially processed goods was ‘CLS’ whereas in the instant case we are concerned with ‘RFG’ but both ‘RFG’ and ‘CLS’ were generated on cracking of Naphtha and were sent to M/s. HPLCL for generation of electricity and steam with an intention to bring back electricity and steam for use in the manufacture of final products.
To the same effect is the decision of the Tribunal in Maharashtra Aldehydes & Chemicals case [2017 (2) TMI 367 - CESTAT MUMBAI] wherein the duty demand on the intermediate product cleared under Rule 4(5)(a) of the CCR was dropped. Since the issue is squarely covered in favour of the Appellant by the decision of the Tribunal in the Appellant’s own case, the appeal of the Appellant allowed on merits.
Extended period of limitation - HELD THAT:- The same also does not survive in view of the communications dated 16 November 1999 &15 December 2000 intimating the Jurisdictional Superintendent about clearance, inter alia, of ‘RFG’ to M/s. HPLCL for job work.
Appeal allowed.
-
2023 (6) TMI 1191
Denial of claim for concessional rate of tax and claim for sales returns - no C Forms to support the claim for concessional rate of tax - claim of the petitioner rejected on the ground that the claim for sales return had not been made within the time contemplated under the statute - differential demand of tax on the petitioner - HELD THAT:- While considering claims for exemption from tax, the burden of proof is strictly on the petitioner to demonstrate that he fulfils the conditions for claiming the exemption, and the statutory provisions in that regard must be strictly construed in favour of the revenue and against the assessee - In the instant case, it is found that the statutory provision mandates that any claim for sales return be made within a period of six months from the date of the sale transaction, and admittedly, in the instant case, the claim for sales returns was made beyond that period.
There are no reason to interfere with the order passed by the Appellate Tribunal, which conforms to the well-settled principle in taxation that a statutory provision providing for an exemption has to be strictly construed in favour of the revenue and against the assessee.
The questions of law raised in this revision petition have to be answered in favour of the revenue and against the assessee - Petition dismissed.
-
2023 (6) TMI 1190
Maintainability of appeal - contravention to sub-sections (1) & (4) of Section 107 of the GST Act - non-constitution of 2nd appellate tribunal - It is contended that the petitioner has already deposited 10% of the demanded tax amount before the first appellate authority and as there is no second appellate forum, this Court should entertain this writ petition - HELD THAT:- Since the petitioner wants to avail the remedy under the provisions of law by approaching 2nd appellate tribunal, which has not yet been constituted, as an interim measure subject to the Petitioner depositing entire tax demand within a period of four weeks from today, the rest of the demand shall remain stayed during the pendency of the writ petition.
Application disposed off.
-
2023 (6) TMI 1189
Refund of GST - Petitioner claimed the refund from IRCTC which would in turn claim the refund form the GST department - Seeking directions from the Court passing order to effect GST refund - HELD THAT:- Upon a perusal of the relevant clauses of Explanation(2)(d) to Section 54(14) of the 2017 Act, it is evident that there is no bar for this Court to pass such an order. The IRCTC is justified in seeking a complimentary refund direction from GST Authorities and that the order of refund to the petitioner should be coupled with a rider that the petitioner files an affidavit indicating that they have not availed the input credit of GST.
The petitioner is directed to file an affidavit indicating that the petitioner has not availed the input credit of GST, including a complete working supported by relevant documents in connection with not claiming the input. Such affidavit shall be filed by the writ petitioner on July 4, 2023, when the matter shall next be listed for passing further orders - Petition disposed off.
-
2023 (6) TMI 1188
Validity of order of assessment passed under the provisions of Section 74 of the TNGST Act - case of petitioner is that petitioner are that the impugned order of assessment is grossly in violation of principles of natural justice - HELD THAT:- The show-cause notice issued under Section 74 is evidently a continuation of the proceedings initiated under notice in DRC 01A dated 23.01.2023. In fact, that notice under DRC 01A has itself been issued under threat of further proceedings under Section 74 and thus, the connection or nexus, in my considered view, has been clearly established. The annexures filed along with DRC 01A reveal the identity of the allegedly non-existent suppliers as M/s.Baby Suba Company as well as the details of transactions inter se and thus, the petitioner is well aware of the specifics of the proposal and is conscious of the fact that the show-cause notice relates to, and is in continuation of the earlier proceedings. The procedure adopted aligns with the statutory scheme of the Act as well.
The petitioner states that (i) it is aware of the issue raised relating to allegedly fraudulent purchases made from M/s.Baby Suba and Company, Chennai and (ii) further, that it was in possession of documents to establish the purchases. In the conclusion of paragraph 5, the petitioner states that supporting documents will be filed at the time of personal hearing. Paragraph 6 relates to the proposal for levy of penalty to which the petitioner objects stating that there was no statutory provision mentioned in relation to which penalty is sought to be levied.
The impugned order has come to be passed in GST DRC 07 dated 12.04.2023 wherein, in the absence of any supporting materials as promised by the petitioner and also no appearance on 05.04.2023, when the matter was fixed for personal hearing, the assessing authority has proceeded to confirm the proposals.
There are no legal infirmity in the procedure followed by the assessing authority in passing the impugned order. It is incumbent upon an assessee to cooperate in the course of assessment proceedings and provide effective responses to the show-cause notice as well as avail of the opportunity for personal hearing - petition dismissed.
-
2023 (6) TMI 1187
Provisional attachment of Bank Accounts of petitioner - attachment in operation for more than one year - HELD THAT:- When a provisional attachment remains in operation for a period exceeding one year from the date it is made, it shall cease to have effect under sub-section (2) of Section 83 of the CGST Act.
Considering the clear legal mandate as ordained by subsection (2) of Section 83, there is much substance in the contentions that by operation of the said provision, the provisional attachment of the petitioner’s bank accounts as made by the Commissioner vide order dated 7 March, 2022 has ceased to operate after 7th March 2023. Such attachment cannot continue after 7 March, 2023 - It needs to be observed that in pursuance of the order dated 4th May 2022 passed by this Court the Petitioners had undertaken to provide bank guarantee of a nationalised bank, however, as the provisional attachment itself has ceased to operate, the bank guarantee as furnished by the Petitioners be returned to the Petitioner.
The Writ Petition is disposed of.
-
2023 (6) TMI 1186
Condonation of delay in filing appeal - sufficient reasons for delay present or not - delay due to medical treatment of the petitioner - contention of the petitioner is that the inability on the part of the petitioner to prefer the appeal within the prescribed period was due to some bona fide reasons, unavoidable circumstances and sufficient cause for delay - HELD THAT:- Admittedly, the appeal was filed beyond time, however, in the peculiar set of facts and circumstances, the reason for delay prima facie, appears to be bona fide.
Considering the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner, the impugned order passed by the Appellate Authority is set aside and the matter is remanded to the Appellate Authority (opposite party no.1) with a direction to consider and adjudicate upon the appeal filed by the petitioner on merits without raising any objection on the limitation, after giving notice and opportunity of hearing to all concerned.
The present petition is partly allowed.
-
2023 (6) TMI 1185
Seeking refund of 90% of the Central Goods and Service Tax (CGST) and Integrated Goods and Service Tax (IGST) amount paid by the petitioner against the Export of goods - HELD THAT:- Admittedly, the first respondent has sanctioned refund both by virtue of the provisional refund orders and the final orders sanctioning the refund. The second respondent has not only failed to respond to the request of the petitioner, but even before this Court, they have not been able to give any reason as to why the refund is not made despite orders of the first respondent. These amounts are rightfully due to the petitioner.
The second respondent is directed to refund the amount due to the petitioner within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, if not otherwise paid - Petition allowed.
-
2023 (6) TMI 1184
Scope of Advance Ruling application - Transfer of unutilized balance in E-credit ledger on merger of distinct persons within same State having same PAN - transfer of unutilized balance in E-credit ledger between distinct persons from one GSTIN to another GSTIN in some State with same PAN, without following the process of merger - HELD THAT:- Any person who is registered under GST or desirous of obtaining a registration under GST may apply for an advance ruling and that the question on which an advance ruling is sought for, may be with respect to any of the issues referred to in Section 97 (2) ibid which are in relation to the supply of goods or services or both being undertaken or proposed to be undertaken by the applicant. In other words, it is the supplier of goods or services or both who can seek an advance ruling on any of the issues specified in clauses (a) to (g) of Section 97(2).
In the instant case there is neither any issue involving applicability of a Notification issued under the provision of Act nor this is a case regarding admissibility of input tax credit of tax paid or deemed to have been paid. Here the issue being raised by the applicant is admissibility of transfer of unutilized balance of Input Tax Credit in E-credit ledger and not regarding the admissibility of Input Tax Credit of tax paid - as Section 97 (2) (d) specifies about the admissibility of input tax credit of tax paid and not regarding admissibility of transfer of unutilized balance of Input tax credit lying in E-credit ledger, the issues raised by the applicant in the instant ARA-01 is out of the scope of advance ruling and accordingly their application merits rejection.
Application for Advance Ruling on the issue of transfer to unutilized balance of Input tax credit lying in E-credit ledger is not maintainable.
-
2023 (6) TMI 1183
Levy of GST - export of pre-packaged and labelled rice upto 25 Kgs, to foreign buyer, to exporter on “bill to ship to” basis i.e., bill to exporter and ship to customs port and to the factory of exporter - HELD THAT:- Export of goods in its cognate expression means taking goods out of India to a place outside India. Exports under GST are “zero rated supplies” and in this context, as per section 16 of IGST, Act 2017 export of goods or services or both and supply of goods or services for authorized operations to Special Economic zone developer or Special Economic zone units are zero rated supplies. We further find from the detailed submissions put forth by the applicant, that they are of the firm opinion that in view of amendment in entry no. 51 of Schedule I of Notification No. 1/2017-Central Tax (Rate) dated 28.6.2017, CGST and SGST @2.5% each is appliable with effect from 18.7.2022 on export of pre-packaged and labelled rice up to 25Kgs directly to a foreign buyer / to an Exporter on “bill to ship to” basis/ to the factory of exporter.
If specified commodities are supplied in a package that do not require declarations / compliances under the Legal Metrology Act, 2009 ( 1 of 2010), and the rules made thereunder, the same would not be treated as pre-packaged and labelled for the purposes of GST levy and that rice supplied in pre-packaged form would fall in the definition of “pre-packaged commodity” under Legal Metrology Act, 2009 and rules made thereunder, if such prepackaged and labelled packages contains a quantity up to 25 Kgs.
GST would be applicable on the supply of prepackaged and labelled rice up to 25 Kgs, for both domestic supplies as also for export clearances. Thus, the applicable rate of GST on the supply of pre-packaged and labelled rice up to 25 Kgs, for both domestic sales as also for export clearances is 5% [2.5% CGST + 2.5% SGST] or (5% IGST) as the case may be, in terms of amended entry no. 51 to Schedule-1 to Notification no. 01/2017-CT(Rate) /Integrated tax [Rate) dated 28.6.2017 as amended, with effect from 18.7.2022 - for inte-rstate supply of taxable goods by a registered supplier to a registered recipient/ merchant exporter, for exports the IGST rate of 0.1 % has been stipulated vide Notification no. 41/2017-lntegrated Tax (Rate) dated 23.10.2017, subject to the adherence of the terms conditions as stipulated therein.
............
|
9911796707
