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 Laws/2011-12/1191

Cenvat credit on Capital goods procured in the previous year to taking registration – 100% credit taken in the year of registration – whether permissible.

Case: Commissioner of C. Ex, Bangalore-II v/s Progressive System
 
Citation: 2011(267) E.L.T.473 (KAR.)
 
Issue:- Cenvat credit on Capital goods procured in the previous year to taking registration – 100% credit taken in the year of registration – whether permissible.
 
Brief Facts:- Respondent-assessee is a manufacturer of machine tools falling under Chapter 84. They took Excise registration on 16.4.2007. They availed Cenvat credit in respect of certain capital goods which were procured by them in the year 2006-07 and 2007-08.
 
Department issued SCNs against the assessee on the ground that the respondents were not entitled to take credit on capital goods procured before registration. On being communicated the assessee reversed the credit under protest. The Adjudicating Authority passed order under Rule 14 of CCR, 2004 read with Section 11A of the Central Excise Act, 1944 confirming the demand.
 
In appeal, the Appellate authority affirmed the said order. Aggrieved by the same, assessee preferred an appeal to the Tribunal. The Tribunal held that Rule 3 (1) of the Rules governed availment of the credit of the various types of duties and there was no bar on SSI taking Cenvat Credit on inputs or capital goods received during 2006-2007. The SSI unit can accumulate capital goods credit till it is exhausted the exempted value of clearance and start paying duty, thereoff. The Tribunal held that as per Rule 4(2) of the Rules an assessee can avail capital goods credit upto 50% in the year of receipt of goods and balance in the subsequent financial year. In the instant case, the entire credit has been availed in 2007-2008, the year following the receipt of the goods. The said availment was not inconsistent with the legal provisions. Accordingly, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order and allowed the appeal granting relief to the assessee.
 
Against the order of the Tribunal, Revenue is in appeal before the High Court.
 
Appellant’s Contention:- Revenue contended that in view of Rule 4(2) of the Rules, the assessee must utilize the Cenvat Credit in the year of its availment. It is only remaining 50% they can utilize at any point of time. In the instant case, admittedly, the assessee did not utilize the credit in the year in which the Cenvat credit was availed.
 
Reasoning of Judgment:- The High Court held that as the assessee has not yet registered its unit under Rules, the assessee was not entitled to utilize the Cenvat Credit in the year of acquiring the same. Rules 4(2)(a) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 provides that only to the extent of 50% of the Cenvat  Credit could be utilize  by the assessee  during the year it is availed of. However the said Rules do not mandate that the credit should be utilized in the very same year. Once the credit is not utilized in the same year, then the Rule 4 (2) (b) provides that it can be utilized in any year and to the full extent. Therefore in the instant case, as Cenvat credit was availed of in the year 2006-2007, when assessee had not yet registered  under Rule 9 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002  the  assessee did not utilize the Cenvat credit.  It is only after registration in the subsequent year that they have utilized the entire Cenvat credit which was standing to their credit. Therefore, it was held that the finding of the Assessing officer as well as the First Appellate Authority that the assessee could not have utilized 100% credit is erroneous. The Tribunal was justified in setting aside the said orders and in allowing Cenvat credit to the assessee in the next year of its availment under the Rules. 
 
Decision:- Appeal dismissed.
Comment:- this decision implies that the credit can be taken afterwards on capital goods even if he is not registered with the department. The respondent was availing SSI exemption and not registered with the department. When he crossed the limit, he took the registration and took the Cenvat credit on capital goods. This implies that the SSI unit can take credit when he is registered with the department.

***********

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