Chartered Accountant
Bookmark and Share
click here to subscribe our newsletter
 
 
Corporate News *  Missing seized records must be considered while testing ITC claim; duplicate GST demands ordered corrected: Delhi High Court. *  GST appeal can’t be rejected without addressing taxpayer’s grounds: Allahabad High Court. *  Surplus IGST credit can offset CGST, SGST shortfall: GSTAT. *  GST refund can’t be denied when cancelled airfares are returned with tax: GSTAT. *  3 Hearing notices issued within 2 minutes: Gujarat High Court flags portal flaw, seeks report. *  GSTR-9, GSTR-9C filing for FY 2025-26 enabled; pending GSTR-1 and GSTR-3B must be filed first. *  Dupattas are exempt fabrics, can’t be taxed as fibres at 4%: Madras High Court. *  Full transitional credit allowed on capital goods received after GST rollout: GSTAT denies Rs. 6.99 lakh export duty credit. *  GST return mismatch alone can’t justify fraud proceedings: GSTAT orders fresh adjudication under section 73. *  Supplier found non-existent later can’t alone justify input tax credit denial: GSTAT. *  GST interest stops once tax reaches government account, can’t run until return filing: GSTAT. *  Cancelled flat booking- GST refund can’t be denied without excluding COVID period from limitation: GSTAT. *  India notifies rules of origin for India–New Zealand FTA. *  Incomplete E-bike kits classifiable as complete vehicles, but not eligible for CKD duty concession: CESTAT. *  Same GST rate on main input and output can’t by itself bar inverted duty refund: GSTAT. *  Unjust enrichment doesn’t apply to customs refunds from assessments finalised before July 13, 2006: Gujarat High Court. *  CENVAT credit can’t be denied solely because plant And machinery are embedded in earth: Karnataka High Court. *  DFIA exports ineligible for RoDTEP benefits; customs directs repayment with applicable interest. *  Second E-Way bill alone doesn’t prove another supply: GSTAT. *  Bail denied in Rs. 1.19 crore fake GST refund case over risk of accused absconding again: Punjab and Haryana High Court. *  GST registration can be restored after revocation deadline if outstanding dues are paid: Gauhati High Court. *  Multiple GST proceedings over same suppliers: Calcutta High Court directs dept. to share findings for adjudication. *  E-Governance portal services not OIDAR, fixed deposit interest not taxable: CESTAT. *  Rs. 500 Stamp duty required on authority letters for CAs, CMA and GST practitioners in Pune GST division.  *  Rs. 1.10 crore GST refund must be paid in cash after business closure: Allahabad High Court. *  Godown rent attracts 18% GST even when used exclusively for exempt agricultural warehousing: AAR. *  GST portal launches "Multi-State Registration" facility: one master TRN for registration applications across multiple States/UTs. *  RoDTEP scheme extended till 31st December, 2026.  *  Mere disagreement with order can’t override Rs. 20 lakh appeal limit: GSTAT. *  Customs interest can’t be backdated before confiscation liability is determined; nearly 8 year period excluded: Delhi High Court.
Subject News *  GST summons: anticipatory bail maintainable without arrest order, but relief denied in evasion case: Allahabad High Court. *  GST Appeal can’t be decided without hearing taxpayer’s objections to fresh evidence: Allahabad High Court. *  GST ITC can’t be reversed merely because supplier grants discount without reducing tax liability: GSTAT. *  Mere quoting of GST provision is not a valid charge: GSTAT quashes ITC denial. *  Personal hearing mandatory before adverse GST order, even without taxpayer’s request: Rajasthan High Court. *  Parallel bail pleas without full disclosure amount to abuse of process Rs. 43.08 crore GST case sent for fresh hearing: Supreme Court. *  GST refund based on unchallenged advance ruling can’t be recovered using later circular: GSTAT. *  Payment of GST alone doesn’t end interest and penalty liability when tax and interest remain unpaid beyond 30 days of notice: GSTAT. *  GST demand over builders’ 80% procurement rule requires reasoned adjudication: GSTAT. *  Eligible ITC doesn’t automatically entitle taxpayers to compensation cess refund on domestic sales: GSTAT. *  GST confiscation order passed before reply deadline invalid: GSTAT. *  GST interest can’t be retained after tax refund on delayed export receipts: Punjab & Haryana High Court. *  GST appeal can’t be dismissed over pre-deposit shortfall without opportunity To respond: Bombay High Court. *  DGGI SCN can’t be challenged before reply and adjudication:Chhattisgarh High Court. *  GST input tax credit can’t be denied solely due to supplier’s retrospective registration cancellation: GSTAT. *  GST notice must explain fraud allegations; merely repeating section 74 Is not enough:  Himachal Pradesh High Court. *  Audit detection alone can’t justify GST fraud penalty; specific suppression must be proved: GSTAT. *  GST order uploaded only under ‘Additional Notices’ tab without separate intimation set aside: Calcutta High Court. *  Service Tax appeal can’t be rejected for missing pre-deposit proof when payment is already recorded: CESTAT. *  SGST dept. can’t hear appeal against CGST order: Calcutta High Court. *  Mere dispatch of tax order can’t prove service or make appeal time-barred: CESTAT. *  Dealer incentives can’t be taxed merely on ledger entries: CESTAT. *  DGFT orders quashed for failure to supply DRI letter relied upon in SCN: Bombay High Court. *  GST penalty u/s 122(1A) can’t apply to Pre-2021 transactions; unregistered beneficiaries also covered: Delhi High Court. *  Expired E-way bill caused by wrong PIN code can’t justify GST penalty without intent to evade tax: GSTAT. *  Used railway rails can’t be taxed as track material without proof they are fit for reuse: CESTAT. *  Earlier DGGI notice doesn’t bar separate GST demand on different issue: Delhi High Court. *  ITC dispute involves no question of law: GSTAT directs appeal to Vice-President. *  Earlier DGGI notice doesn’t bar separate GST demand On different issue: Delhi High Court. *  No E-way bill required for interstate goods movement in november 2017: GSTAT quashes detention and penalty.  

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