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 /2016-17/3314

Credit admissibility on Plates, Channels, Beams etc used in fabrication of capital goods and canteen shed.

Case:-MATRIX LABORATORIES LTD. VERSUS COMMR. OF CUS., C. EX. & S.T., HYDERABAD-I
 
Citation:- 2016 (339) E.L.T. 122 (Tri. - Hyd.)

Brief Facts:- The appellants are manufacturers of bulk drugs and intermediaries falling under Chapter 29 of the 1st Schedule of CETA, 1985. They are also availing Cenvat credit on inputs and capital goods. During the period from Nov., 2008 to June, 2009, the appellants had availed Cenvat credit on MS angles, channels, beams, plates, etc., falling under Chapter No. 72 and 73. The department entertained a view that credit on these items is not available, and issued a show cause notice dated 19-11-2009. After adjudication, the original authority disallowed the credit being inadmissible and demanded recovery of the same along with interest and imposed equal amount of penalty. Aggrieved by the said order, the appellants have filed an appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) who vide the order impugned herein dismissed the appeal upholding the disallowance of credit but reduced the penalty to Rs. 50,000/-. Being aggrieved by the said order, the appellants have preferred this appeal.
 
Appellant’s Contention:-  The learned counsel for the appellant Sh. R. Muralidharsubmitted that the appellant had explained the manner of use of the impugned goods in fabrication/manufacture of capital goods, spares and accessories to capital goods. The MS angles/channels were used for fabrication in support to the technological structural bridge wherein the pipeline system laid down from utility block to production block area in the plant. In addition to the above, the angles were used in fabrication of cable tray which will be supporting the electrical cables laid from the electrical panel to production and utility blocks. They were also used for supporting the equipments like reactors, distillation columns, heat exchangers, etc. He submitted that the appellants also produced a Chartered Engineers certificate which was prepared by the Chartered Engineer after due verification. The learned counsel placed reliance on the judgments in Rajasthan Spinning and Weaving Mills - 2010 (255) E.L.T. 481 (S.C.) and the case of India Cements Ltd. - 2015 (321) E.L.T. 209 (Mad.).
 
Respondent’s Contention:- Against this, the Learned AR vehemently argued that the credit is not admissible as the subject items do not qualify as capital goods nor is there any proof that they were utilised for manufacture of capital goods/components/ spares/accessories. That the appellant have not submitted sufficient documents to establish use of the impugned goods in manufacture of capital goods. He also pointed out that some of the subject items were used in making canteen shed and therefore the credit cannot be allowed.

Reasoning of Judgement:- The certificate issued by the Chartered Engineer Shri N.J. Vidyasagar of Secunderabad, states that the impugned items were used for fabrication of technological structures bridges, supporting to the equipments like reactors, distillation column, heat exchangers, receivers in utility and production blocks, pipeline systems, etc. The Commissioner (Appeals) has brushed aside this  certificate stating that there are no supporting documents to evidence the use of these items in the manner stated in the certificate. It is further stated by the Commissioner that even assuming that the appellants used the subject MS items for fabrication of support of structure to support pipelines/heat exchangers/reactors distillation column/electrical cables they are permanently fixed on the ground or walls and are not eligible to avail the credit for structural items as these are not goods any more having been fixed to the ground. The Hon’ble Courts not able to agree with this view that the MS items used as support structure for capital goods/parts/components/ are not eligible for Cenvat credit. The use of MS items to manufacture/fabricate capital goods/parts/accessories has been settled in the cases of Rajasthan Spinning and Weaving Mills and India Cements. While considering the issue the Hon’ble Courts have taken the view that the machineries in a factory have to be properly supported and connected. Such structural supports are necessary for the machines to make them function without vibration or movement. In Divis Laboratories Ltd. v. CCE, Visakhapatnam - 2006 (196) E.L.T. 285 (Tri.-Bang.) it was held that the items like angles channels, beams, pipes, tubes, etc. used as parts of technological structures which support a reaction vessel or used in particular equipment in the manufacture of bulk drugs was admissible.
 
However, It is seen that the appellants have used the impugned items for making canteen sheds. The claim of credit on MS items used for making canteen sheds, in Hon’ble Courts view is not admissible for the reasons that canteen sheds do not qualify as capital goods as provided in Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. It then becomes necessary to quantify the amount of impugned item used in the manufacture of canteen shed. The appellant will have to approach with necessary document to the concerned Range Superintendent for this. The Appellant shall furnish evidence regarding the quantity of impugned items used in the construction of canteen shed and is also liable to reverse the credit availed on manufacture of canteen shed.
 
Decision:- Appeal partly allowed.

Comment:- The gist of the case is that MS items used to manufacture/fabricate capital goods/parts/accessories will qualify as capital goods and Cenvat credit on the same is admissible but MS items used in construction of canteen shed is not admissible for the reason that canteen sheds do not qualify as capital goods as provided in Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004.

Prepared by:- Akshit Bhandari
 

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