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/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