Board’s Circulars have prospective effect only and not retrospective effect
PrintListen to this Article
Board’s Circulars have prospective effect only and not retrospective effect
We are sharing with you an important judgment of the Central Government in the case of Uttam Galva Steels Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CCE Raigad [2014 (12) TMI 619–Government of India] on following issue:
Issue:
whether the Board’s Circulars can be effective retrospectively?
Facts & background:
Uttam Galva Steels Pvt. Ltd. (“the Appellant”) was engaged in the manufacturing activity and the final products which were cleared on payment of duty included the products namely ‘H.R. Pickled Oils’ (“Pickled Oils”) and ‘HR Pickled and oiled coils’ (“Pickled Coils”). Pickled Oils and Pickled Coils were cleared for home consumption as well as exported under Rebate claim/ Bond.
The Appellant had filed various Rebate claims during the period of December 2009 to April 2010 involving an amount of Rs. 3,18,72.034/- but inadvertently mentioned the Tariff Classification of Pickled Coils as 72083940 in the Rebate claims which was similar to Tariff Classification of H.R. Coils declared as input in the Appellant’s application for Central Excise Registration.
However, the Appellant clarified that the inputs i.e. H. R. Coils received in the factory are subjected to the process of slitting, pickling, oiling and trimming and explained the processes involved in detail. Accordingly, it was contended that the process undertaken by the Appellant amounts to manufacture in terms of Sub Heading Note No. 3 of Chapter 72 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 which provides that the process of hardening and tempering, in respect of flat rolled products, amounts to ‘manufacture’.
The Department took a view that since the Appellant did not reveal that the process of pickling and oiling amounts to hardening and tempering, therefore the process of pickling and oiling carried out by the Appellant does not amount to manufacture.
Thereafter, the Adjudicating Authority rejected the entire Rebate Claim on the ground that process undertaken by the Appellant does not amount to manufacture in terms of Circular No. 927/17/2010-CX dated June 24, 2010 wherein it was clarified that ‘mere undertaking the process of oiling and pickling as preparatory steps do not amount to manufacture’. Later on, the Commissioner (Appeals) also upheld the same.
Held:
Being aggrieved, the Appellant filed a Revision Application before the Central Government under Section 35EE of Central Excise Act, 1944, wherein it was held that:
- The Apex Court in the case of H. M. Bags Manufacturer Vs. Collector of Central Excise [1997(94) ELT 3(S.C.)] and various subsequent judgements had stipulated that the Board's circular can have only prospective effect which is evidently the law of the land. Hence, rejection of the Rebate claims on the sole ground that the process does not amounts to manufacture by applying the Board’s Circular retrospectively i.e. prior to June 24, 2010 cannot be held sustainable and hence, liable to be set aside.
- In Ajinkya Enterprises, Pune, it has been held that once the duty on final product has been accepted by the Department, the Cenvat credit availed need not be reversed even if the activity does not amount to manufacture.
Hope the information will assist you in your Professional endeavors. In case of any query/ information, please do not hesitate to write back to us.
Thanks & Best Regards,
Bimal Jain
FCA, FCS, LLB, B.Com (Hons)
Delhi:
Flat No. 34B, Ground Floor, Pocket - 1,
Mayur Vihar, Phase - I,
Delhi – 110091, India
Desktel: +91-11-22757595/ 42427056
Mobile: +91 9810604563
Email: bimaljain@hotmail.com
Category : Excise | Comments : 0 | Hits : 248
The scheme of levy and collection of Central Excise duty on articles of Jewellery is as under: (a) The levy and collection of Central Excise Duty is on the manufacture of Jewellery (excluding silver Jewellery, not studded with diamonds, ruby, emerald or sapphire). (b) It is applicable to both branded as well as unbranded Jewellery. (c) The rate of duty on the Jewellery are as follows: (i) 1% on transaction value [without Cenvat credit on inputs and capital goods...
Clarifications on Excise imposed on Jewellery
Clarifications on Excise imposed on Jewellery The strike by bullion traders and jewellers continued for the 8th day to protest the Budget proposal to impose one per cent excise duty(without input tax credit) on Jewellery, despite the Centre's assurance that it would look into the issue. Most Jewellery houses are closed since the finance minister Arun Jaitley in his Budget proposal on February 29 levied 1% excise duty on Jewellery. Striking associations in different part of the country h...
No bar on admissibility of Cenvat credit either as Inputs or Capital goods at any stage of proceedings
Dear Professional Colleague, No bar on admissibility of Cenvat credit either as Inputs or Capital goods at any stage of proceedings We are sharing with you an important judgment of the Hon’ble CESTAT, Kolkata in the case of Tata Steel Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Jamshedpur [(2016) 66 taxmann.com 76 (Kolkata - CESTAT)] on following issues: Issue: Whether rails and other track materials, namely, sleepers, paints and crossings etc. used for movement of raw materials, finish...
Cenvat credit admissible on services of sales commission agent Background: Even though the definition of ‘input services’ given under Rule 2(l) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 (“the Credit Rules”) covers the services of sales promotion in its inclusive part, eligibility to avail Cenvat credit on the services rendered by a commission agent has been disputed recently because of divergent judgments and views of the Department. In this regard, the Hon’ble Punjab &...
Cenvat credit on input services availed prior to initiation of manufacturing activity is admissible
Cenvat credit on input services availed prior to initiation of manufacturing activity is admissible Shree Cement Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Jaipur [2015 (63) taxmann.com 151 (New Delhi - CESTAT)] Facts: The Department denied the Cenvat credit on the ground that Shree Cement Ltd. (“the Appellant”) is not entitled to take Cenvat credit on Service tax on cargo handling service which has been distributed to the...
Comments