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 Laws/2012-13/1462

Eligibility for availment of capital goods credit to be checked with taxability of service and receipt of capital goods.


Case:- COMMISIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE , SURAT  Versus  ANERI CONSTRUCTION

Citation:-  2012 (28) S.T.R. 578 (Tri.- Ahmd.)

Brief Facts:-The issue involved in this case is regarding to eligibility for availment of CENVAT credit of the tax/duty paid on the  purchase of  Air Compressors by the respondent and received in the factory premises on 5-5-2005. The Adjudicating Authority has submitted that the Air Compressors which are purchased and received by appellant for providing the output services ‘Commercial & Industrial Construction Services’ (Pipe lines services) and the said services were brought into the taxable net from 16-6-2005. So such credit could not be availed on duty paid on such Air Compressor though it is Capital goods as the said Capital Goods were received in the premises of the service provider on 5-5-2005, before the services were taxable under the Finance Act, 1994. The Respondent preferred appeal before the first appellate authority. The first appellate authority, after considering the submissions has set aside the order-in-original and held in favour of the assessee.   

Appellant’s Contentions:- The adjudicating authority has submitted that the Air Compressors which  are purchased and received by appellant for providing the output services ‘Commercial & Industrial Construction Services’ (Pipe lines services) but the said services were brought into the taxable net from 16-6-2005. So such Credit could not be availed on duty paid on such Air Compressor though it is Capital goods as the said Capital Goods were received in the premises of the services provider on 5-5-2005, before the services were taxable under the Finance Act, 1994.

Reasoning of Judgment:-After considering the records & hearing both sides, the Tribunal held that the undisputed fact was that the assessee had received the Air- compressors on 5-5-2005. It was also undisputed that the said Air-compressors were to be utilised by the assessee for providing output service of laying of long distance pipe line covered under the category of "Commercial and Industrial Construction Services", which came into tax net with effect from 16-6-2005. The learned counsel  has placed reliance on the Hon’ble Gujarat High Court Judgment, and it  is seen that the Hon’ble High Court has specifically con­sidered the facts of the case wherein the facts were in respect of the reversal of the Cenvat credit availed by the appellant was sought to be recovered by issu­ance of show cause notice. The facts in that case which has been indicated by their Lordships in paragraph-2 of their judgment are totally different from the facts in the current case before the Tribunal. Hence the reliance placed by the learned counsel on the case of Hon'ble Gujarat High Court will not carry his case any further.
Tribunal also found an identical issue in respect of the capital goods received  for the manufacturing of final products which were exempted, was being heard and the eligibility for availing the credit was decided by the Larger Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Spenta International Limited - 2007 (216) E.L.T. 133 (Tri.-LB). The learned counsel would try to distinguish the said judgment by stating that the judgment was in respect of the capital goods which were used and which required installation during the relevant period. Tribunal find that such distinguishing factor will not carry the case of the assessee any further, inasmuch a the facts in this case are not disputed which indicates that such capital goods can be utilised by the assessee only for the services to be rendered which came into service tax net from 16-6-2005. If that be so, Tribunal is bound by the judgment and ratio of which has been reproduced hereinabove. Accordingly, Tribunal set aside the impugned order and allow the appeal filed by the Revenue.

Decision:- Appeal Allowed.

Comment:-The substance of this case is that the eligibility to avail and utilise the cenvat credit on capital goods is to be checked with reference to the taxability of the service in which they are used. If the service itself is brought into tax net after receipt of the capital goods, such credit cannot be availed and utilised. 

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