Chartered Accountant
Bookmark and Share
click here to subscribe our newsletter
 
 
Corporate News *  Service tax penalty can’t survive when assessee acted on dept.’s own view of non-taxability: Delhi High Court. *  GST section 74 extended limitation questionable when form 26AS mismatch was already known: Karnataka High Court grants interim relief. *  CGST demand prima facie impermissible after state GST settlement under section 128A: Bombay High Court. *  Supreme Court asks GSTAT to sympathetically consider delay as taxpayers pursued remedy before wrong forum. *  Supreme Court stays Tripura High Court ruling protecting genuine buyers from ITC denial over supplier’s GST default. *  Diary entries alone can’t prove clandestine removal of goods: CESTAT quashes excise penalty on steel trader. *  Customs could investigate preferential tariff claims even before sec. 28DA: Delhi High Court. *  Customs dept. relied on fake AI generated case laws: supreme court quashes Rs. 425.28 crore penalty. *  No GST exemption in affiliation and annual registration charges for admission or conduct Of examinations: GSTAT. *  Mere invoices, cheque payments insufficient to establish genuine movement of goods: GSTAT restores Rs. 43.44 lakh ITC demand. *  Consolidated GST show cause notice covering multiple financial years is not without jurisdiction: Delhi High Court. *  Construction of independent houses on separate plots not taxable as ‘Residential Complex’ without common facilities: CESTAT. *  GST penalty exceeding statutory maximum unsustainable; Allahabad High Court quashes ? 50,000/- penalty after taxpayer filed return and paid late fee. *  GST order against standard chartered bank passed without hearing set aside by Bombay High Court. *  Retracted statements can’t be relied upon without cross-examination: CESTAT quashes gold confiscation. *  Burden to prove misclassification lies on customs department: CESTAT. *  CESTAT quashes Rs. 98 lakh excise demand on clearance of used refractory brick scrap. *  Service tax demand on irrigation works quashed: Karnataka High Court rules sale of goods component not taxable as service. *  GSTAT restores tax and penalty for transporting iron scrap without E-way bill citing intent to evade tax. *  Madras High Court stays GST recovery from directors without opportunity to show cause under section 89. *  Madras high court stays GST recovery notice against directors; finds prima facie case on applicability of section 79(1)(c). *  Procedural lapses can’t justify harsh punishment without serious customs breach: CESTAT quashes customs broker licence revocation. *  Service tax payable on land leasing and sports complex charges: CESTAT. *  Settled customs dispute can’t be reopened through Article 226 challenge to interest liability: Delhi High Court. *  Mere facilitation of customs clearance can’t establish knowledge of smuggling: Madras High Court. *  GST registration cancellation stayed: Allahabad High Court questions 99% ITC utilisation cap under rule 86B. *  Composition scheme lapses automatically on crossing Rs. 1.5 crore turnover: GSTAT. *  Gujarat High Court quashes GST cancellation orders after officer relied on non-existent AI-generated case laws. *  Importers liable for customs duty benefits availed through manipulated scrips: Delhi High Court. *  Procedural E-way bill lapse alone can’t justify penalty where genuine transaction and absence of tax evasion are established: GSTAT.
Subject News *  Documentary evidence dominates probe, further custody unwarranted: mumbai court grants bail in Rs. 22.44 crore customs duty evasion case. *  Business premises can’t remain sealed for non-participation in GST search: Allahabad High Court. *  GST pre-deposit must be refunded proportionately when taxpayer partly succeeds in appeal: Bombay High Court. *  Supreme Court grants 30 days to file GST appeal; keeps pre-deposit issue open due to deposit in parallel CGST proceedings. *  GST demand can’t exceed amount proposed in SCN: Allahabad High Court quashes Rs. 20.47 Crore order. *  Hundreds-of-crores GST demand and heavy 10% pre-deposit no ground to bypass statutory appeal: Punjab & Haryana High Court. *  Delhi High Court refuses to entertain challenge to gold confiscation due to statutory appeal remedy and unexplained delay. *  Procedural error in customs broker licence inquiry can be rectified through remand: Delhi High Court. *  GSTR-2A mismatch alone can’t justify ITC denial without invoice-wise verification; personal hearing mandatory: GSTAT. *  GST order passed without uploading personal hearing notices violates sec. 75(4): Allahabad High Court. *  TAX EVASION - Sec. 74 GST SCN quashed for not spelling out fraud, wilful misstatement or suppression: Allahabad High Court. *  STPI’s SOFTEX certification and NoC charges taxable as business support services: CESTAT. *  Suspicion can’t replace proof: CESTAT quashes penalty in alleged gold-smuggling operation. *   Limitation runs from communication of order: Madras High Court upholds rejection of delayed GST Appeals. *  Rajasthan High Court quashes GST demand over unsigned show cause notice. *  ITC recovery upheld where supplier failed to deposit GST: Rajasthan High Court. *  Customs commissioner’s empowered to make port trust liable for duty on pilfered goods: Supreme Court. *  Rectification proceedings can’t be used to challenge an uncontested GST assessment through a writ petition: Andhra Pradesh HC. *  GST proceedings against deceased proprietor unsustainable without notice to legal heir: GSTAT. *  Mere availment of ineligible self-assessed ITC doesn’t amount to suppression without evidence of fraud or wilful misstatement: GSTAT. *  Disposal of mining overburden by entity authorised by mining lease holder constitutes taxable service: CESTAT. *  Toll plaza data not mandatory for ITC refund: GSTAT. *  Disputed GST fraud allegations require investigation: Punjab and Haryana High Court makes interim bail absolute in alleged fraud and GST fraud case. *  Non-manufacturer contractor liable to deposit excess excise duty collected from buyer: CESTAT. *  GST order can’t reject taxpayer’s reply as “not satisfactory” without reasons: Madhya Pradesh High Court. *  Uncorroborated statements can’t establish alleged diversion of duty-free goods: CESTAT. *  Erection services were not liable to service tax prior to 10th september 2004: CESTAT. *  Sec. 74 GST notice must spell out statutory ingredients for invoking extended tax demand proceedings: Allahabad High Court. *  No jurisdictional bar under section 6(2)(b) in parallel CGST SGST proceedings: Delhi High Court refuses to bypass GST appeal remedy. *  Madras High Court remits GST demand for fresh adjudication after taxpayer claims it was unaware of SCN following business closure.  

Comments

Publish Date: 27 Feb, 2010
Print   |    |  Comment

Capitalisation on Capital Goods

 

Capitaliation on Capital Goods

 

Prepared By:

CA Pradeep Jain

Mayank Palgauta

 

The recent budget has made changes in respect of reversal of Cenvat credit on removal of capital goods. Through this piece, we are trying to analysis the same and seeing its impacts.

 

Amendment in the Budget:-

 

The second proviso to sub-rule 5 of Rule 3 has been substituted which reads as follows:-

 

 “Provided further that if the capital goods, on which CENVAT Credit has been taken, are removed after being used, the manufacturer or provider of output services shall pay an amount equal to the CENVAT Credit taken on the said capital goods reduced by the percentage points calculated by straight line method (SLM) as specified below for each quarter of a year or part thereof from the date of taking the CENVAT Credit, namely:-

 

1.      for computers and computer peripherals:

 

for each quarter in the first year @ 10%

for each quarter in the second year @ 8%

for each quarter in the third year @5%

for each quarter in the fourth and fifth year @1%

 

2.      for capital goods, other than computers and computer peripherals @ 2.5% for each quarter.”

 

Meaning:

 

From the above amendment in Rule 3 (5) of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 it is clarified that those Capital Goods on which credit is taken and are removed after being used by the Manufacturer or service provider then he will liable to pay the proportionate amount of Cenvat Credit which will be decreased by depreciation amount calculated on % basis on each quarter in each year or part thereof. Earlier the depreciation was provided @ 2.5% per quarter. But now the Capital goods have been classified in two categories for this purpose -

 

                               I.            computers and computer peripherals; and

                            II.            other capital goods

 

In first category of “computers and computer peripherals” the amount of depreciation will be determined as follows:

 

 

% apply in each quarter

Total historical cost of capital goods will reduced by

In first Year

10 %

10 * 4 =     40%

In second Year

8 %

 8 * 4 =       32%

In third Year

5 %

 5 * 4 =       20%

In fourth Year

1 %

 1 * 4 =         4%

In fifth Year

1 %

 1 * 4 =         4%

TOTAL % of depreciation

                  100%

 

Thus, the assessee will able to get the full amount of depreciation during the first five year due to affect of SLM approach.

 

For Capital Goods, other than computers and computer peripherals, the benefit of depreciation will be permitted during the period of ten years as rate of depreciation is given in this notification @ 2.5 % per quarter.

 

Whereas according to provisions of the Income Tax Act, 1961 the amount of depreciation on "Computers and Office Equipments” will be calculated on the basis of Written down Value (WDV) method @ 60 % on carrying amount of such asset in each year and part thereof. This can be understood by the following table: -

 

 

PARTICULARS

CALCULATIONS OF DEPRECIATION AMOUNT

CARRYING AMOUNT

 

Assumed Cost of Asset

Rs. 100

First Year

100 * 60 % = Rs. 60

(100-60) = Rs. 40

Second Year

40 * 60% = Rs. 24

(40-24) = Rs. 16

Third Year

16 * 60% = Rs. 9.6

(16-9.6) = Rs. 6.4

Fourth Year

6.4 * 60% = Rs. 3.84

(6.4-3.84) = Rs. 2.56

Fifth Year

2.56 * 60% = Rs. 1.54

(2.56-1.54)= Rs. 1.02

 

Thus, according to Income Tax Act, 1961 the assessee will not be able to get full amount of depreciation on such asset due to affect of WDV approach during first five years.

 

But while going through per year benefit of depreciation in terms of % as a whole then it appears that benefit of depreciation amount in first year will be more under Income Tax Act whereas in subsequent years benefit will be more under Excise Law. This can be presented in tabular form as follows: -

 

 

Particulars

As per Excise Law

As per Income Tax Law

Excess Benefit under excise law

 

Benefit of depreciation in % on Original Cost

 

First Year

40 %

60 %

(-) 20 %

Second Year

32 %

24 %

8 %

Third Year

20 %

9.6 %

10.4 %

Fourth Year

4 %

3.84 %

0.16 %

Fifth Year

4 %

1.54 %

2.46 %

TOTAL

100 %

98.98 %

 

 

There should not be different tax rates under Income tax and Central Excise Rules.

 

The second impact of this amendment clarifies is that the depreciation will be allowed on straight line method. Earlier it was not clearly provided in the rule that the depreciation will be allowed on straight line or written down value method. The audit party has raised paras on the same. But this dispute is settled by this clear amendment. This is a welcome step.

 

Before parting……..

 

The cenvat credit on the capital goods falling under Chapter 82, 84, 85, 90 is allowed as per Rule 2(a) of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. The computer falls under the above definition. But the other condition is that the same should be used in the factory but does not include the things used in office premises. Most of the computers and peripherals are used in the office premises only. As such the credit will not be allowed on the same. However, the computers and computer peripherals are attached to machines comes along with machine and classified as a whole in that tariff heading. If this part is removed after use then the same will fall under tariff heading of machine. As such, whether the depreciation listed above will be allowed? The department will not agree to the same. But the service provider will definitely get the benefit of the same.

 

***********

Department News


Query

 
PRADEEP JAIN, F.C.A.

Head Office : -

Address :
"SUGYAN", H - 29, SHASTRI NAGAR, JODHPUR (RAJ.) - 342003

Phone No. :
0291 - 2439496, 0291 - 3258496

Mobile No. :
09314722236

Fax No. :0291 - 2439496


Branch Office : -

Address:
1008, 10th FLOOR, SUKH SAGAR COMPLEX,
NEAR FORTUNE LANDMARK HOTEL, USMANPURA,
ASHRAM ROAD, AHMEDABAD-380013

Phone No. :
079-32999496, 27560043

Mobile No. :
093777659496, 09377649496

E-mail :pradeep@capradeepjain.com