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

Print   |    |  Comment

PJ/Case Law /2016-17/3383

Admissibility of Cenvat credit on structural items.

Case:-UNION OF INDIA Versus ASSOCIATED CEMENT CO. LTD.
 
Citation:-2016 (341) E.L.T. 175 (Chhattisgarh)
 
Brief facts:- Revenue’s appeal under Section 35G of the Central Excise Act, 1944 against the impugned order of Customs Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi (in short “the Tribunal”) has been admitted for hearing on the following substantial questions of law :
“1.        Whether the learned Appellate Tribunal has erred in allowing the appeal to the respondent and allowing them credit on the impugned items?
3.         Whether the items, as specified in the memo of the appeal, were defined as “Capital Goods” in terms of Rule 2(b) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2002 during the period from April, 2004 to July, 2004?” if not, then the impugned order (Annexure A/1) is liable to be set aside and the Order-in-Original (Annexure A/3) and Order-in-Appeal (Annexure A/4) be upheld and accordingly restored?”
Modvat credit was disallowed to the respondent/assessee on the capital goods namely, Plate/Plate Mill Plate, M.S. Angle/MST Angle, Angle, M.S. Beam, M.S. Channel, etc. The appeal preferred by the assessee has been further dismissed by the Commissioner (Appeals) vide Annexure A/4. However, the Tribunal allowed the appeal of the assessee by relying upon the decision of the Mumbai Tribunal in the case of Ispat Industries Ltd. v. CCE, Mumbai reported in 2006 (195)E.L.T.164, wherein it has been held that structural items such as angles and channels, plates, rods, etc. required to make machines function without any vibration or movement, cannot be said to be used in construction of buildings but linked with machinery used in production of final products, and, therefore, the Cenvat credit is admissible.
 
Respondent’s contention:-Mr. Shashank Dubey, learned Sr. Advocate with Mrs. Smiti Sharma, Advocate, appearing for the respondent/assessee, relying upon the latest decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court dated 9th July, 2010 passed in Civil Appeal No. 3760/2003 [2010 (255)E.L.T.481 (S.C.)] in the matter of Commissioner of Central Excise, Jaipur v. M/s. Rajasthan Spinning & Weaving Mills Ltd., argued that the issue sought to be raised by the revenue in this appeal stands concluded in favour of the assessee.
Reliance is also placed on the decision of the Supreme Court in the matter of CCE, Coimbatore & Ors. v. Jawahar Mills Ltd. & Ors. reported in (2001) 6 SCC 274 = 2001 (132)E.L.T.3 (S.C.).
 
Appellant’s contention:-Mr. Bhishma Kinger, learned counsel for the appellant/revenue fairly agrees that the issue involved in this appeal has been finally decided by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the above judgments in favour of the assessee.
Reasoning of judgment:- In the matter of Rajasthan Spinning & Weaving Mills Ltd. (supra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court relying upon its earlier judgment in Jawahar Mills Ltd. (supra) held in para 14 of the judgment that the assessee was entitled to avail of Modvat credit in respect of the subject items viz. steel plates and M.S. channels used in the fabrication of chimney for the diesel generating set, by treating these items as capital goods in terms of Rule 57Q of the Rules.
In the instant case also, the Tribunal, in view of its earlier decision in respondent’s own case in Appeal No. E/585/2005 vide Final Order No. 452/2007-SM, dated 26-2-2007 wherein the assessee has been held to be entitled for Modvat credit on capital goods namely, Wear Plate, HRSS Plate, MS Plate, Angles, Channels, etc. used for connecting/fitting fans, casing, ducting in kilns for the manufacture of intermediate product ‘clinker’, allowed the appeal of the assessee.
They  are, therefore, of the considered opinion that the Tribunal was correct in law in holding that the assessee was entitled to avail of Modvat credit in respect of the above subject items.
For the aforesaid reasons, they find no substance in this appeal, the same deserves to be and is, accordingly, dismissed.
 
Decision:- Appeal dismissed
 
Comment:- The case was decided on relying on various cases. Assessee was entitled to avail of Modvat credit in respect of steel plates and M.S. channels used in the fabrication, by treating these items as capital goods.
Prepared by:- Monika Tak
 

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