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-2013/14-1604

Eligibility of Cenvat Credit of MS Plates, HR Sheets etc. used for fabrication of chimney.

Case:-METROCHEM INDUSTRIES LTD. VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF C. EX., VADODARA -I

Citation:-2013(292) E.L.T. 578 (Tri.-Ahmd.)

Brief Facts:-The relevant facts arises for consideration is that the appellants herein are engaged in manufacturing excisable goods falling under Chapter 28, 29 and 32 at the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. On scrutiny of Cenvat credit re­cords and the relevant invoices maintained by the assessee for the period 2008- 09, it was noticed that the appellant had availed Cenvat credit of the duty paid on capital goods amounting to Rs. 1,04,558/- in respect of goods falling under Chapter 72 of the CETA on a conclusion that capital goods which are falling un­der Chapter 72 are ineligible for availment of Cenvat credit. Further scrutiny was taken up and found that the appellant had availed Cenvat credit on inputs like MS Steel Plates and various other goods. Show cause notice was issued demand­ing wrongly availed Cenvat credit along with interest and also with proposal for imposition of penalty. The appellant contested the show-cause notice before the Adjudicating Authority. The Adjudicating Authority after following due process of law confirmed interest thereof and also imposed penalty. Aggrieved by such an order, appellant preferred appeal before the First Appellate Authority. The First Appellate Authority also concurred with the view of the Adjudicating Authority and rejected the appeal filed by the assessee, hence this appeal.

Appellant Contentions:-The Appellant submits that the impugned order categorically records that the MS Plates which were procured by appellant on which credit was availed, was utilized by the appellant for fabri­cation of goods like Ducts, HA F, Chamber to Cyclone Ducting, New incinerator Chimney, 30 KL Vacuum Trap, Chloro Tank, Ducts for Chimney etc. It is his submission that these items are required for manufacturing final products, i.e. chemicals. He would submit that the appellant had produced certificate issued by Krishna Engineers, Government approved valuer in respect of use of HR, MS etc. and draws attention to the certificate Annexed at page 96.2, 117 of the Appeal Memo. He would submit that the issue in this case is now settled by judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Rajasthan Spinning & Weaving Mills Ltd. [2010 (255) E.L.T. 481 (S.C.)] and judgment of the Hon'ble High Court of Rajast­han in the case of Hindustan Zinc Ltd. [2007 (214) E.L.T. 510 (Raj.)] and upheld by the Apex Court [2007 (214) E.L.T. A 115 (S.C.)], the decision of the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in the case of SLR Steels Ltd. [2012 (280) E.L.T.176 (Kar.)] and decision of the Principal bench of the Tribunal in the case of L.H. Sugar Factories Ltd. [2010(251) E.L.T.135(Tri.-Del.)
Respondent Contentions:-The Respondent would submit that the appellant in this case has not been able to justify his claim that the items manufactured from steel plates were used in factory of production. He relied upon the judgment of Larger Bench of Tribunal in case of Vandana Global [2010(253) E.L.T.440(Tri.- LB). He would submit that the lower authorities have recorded that these plates are used in repair and maintenance. As these plates are used for repair and maintenance, credit on duty paid is ineligible as per the judgment of Hon’ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh in the case of Sree Rayalaseema Hi-strength Hypo Ltd. [2012 (278) E.L.T.167(A.P.)]

Reasoning of Judgment:-We have considered the submission from both the parties and perused the record, we find that the appellant is aggrieved by the order of the First Appellante Authority for denial of Cenvat credit on MS Plates, HR Sheets etc. on the ground that these items fall under Chapter-72 and are not capital goods. It is found that the certificate issued by Chartered Engineers produced at page 94 & 117, clearly indicates that the MS Plates, HR Sheets etc. are utilized for fabrication of various parts of ducts for Chimney at their HAG plant. The Chartered Engineer’s certificate also indicates that the material is used for fabrication for new Chloro Tank etc.

As against such an evidence, Tribunal finds that the appellant authority has sought to justify his order of rejection of credit only on the ground that the Jurisdictional Assistant Commissioner has filed a report that the assessee had no record to justify their claim. Tribunal do not agree to such findings recorded by the First Appellante Authority. In Tribunal’s view, Rule 2(k) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 will come to the rescue of the appellant in this case, the decisions cited by the ld. Counsel would be directly applicable and it is to be held that the appellant herein is eligible to avail cenvat credit of the duty paid on the items i.e. MS Plates and HR Sheets, which according to Chartered Engineering’s certificate are mostly used for fabrication of machinery.

In view of the foregoing in the facts and circumstances of this case, it is found that the impugned order is unsustainable and accordingly the impugned order is set aside and appeal is allowed.
 
Decision:-  Appeal allowed.

Comment:- The crux of this case appellant has taken cenvat credit of MS Plats, HR Sheet etc. for  the fabrication of various parts of ducts for Chimney at their HAG plant that aid in the production of final products. Accordingly, cenvat credit was held to be rightly admissible.
 

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