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 Law /2016-17/3412

Whether assessee is entitled to 50% credit of components in the subsequent year even if the same are not in his possession in the subsequent year?

 
 
Case:-OWENS CORNING (INDIA) PVT. LTD.  Versus COMMISSIONER OF C. EX., BELAPUR
Citation:-2015 (39) S.T.R. 158 (Tri. - Mumbai)
Brief facts:-The appellant filed this appeal against the impugned order passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise, Belapur. The appellant are engaged in the manufacture of glass fibre. The appellant availed Cenvat credit in respect of ‘bushing’ as parts of capital goods. The glass fibre is manufactured by drawing the molten glass through these bushings. The appellant availed credit of 50% of the duty paid in respect of bushings and further availed credit of balance 50% of the duty in the subsequent financial year as per the provisions of Rule 4(2)(a) and (b) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. Revenue confirmed the demand in respect of 50% of the credit availed in the subsequent financial year on the ground that the appellant are not entitled for the remaining 50% of the credit which was availed in the subsequent financial year, as the bushings are not in the possession and use of the appellant.
Appellant’s contention:- The contention of the appellant is that the bushings, after use were re-exported for re-making. The contention is that balance of Cenvat credit in respect of the capital goods may be taken in any financial year subsequent to the financial year in which the capital goods are received in the factory, if the capital goods, other than components, spares and accessories are in the possession of the manufacturer of final products. The contention is that the provisions of Rule 4(2)(a) and (b) are not applicable in respect of the components, spares and accessories of the capital goods. The applicant are entitled to avail 50% of the credit in the next financial year.
Respondent’s contention:-The contention of the Revenue is that, at the time of taking of 50% of the remaining credit in subsequent year, the bushings received by the appellant are newly manufactured bushings. Therefore, as the capital goods on which 50% of the credit has been taken on receipt of the capital goods in the factory were not in possession and use in the subsequent financial year. Therefore, credit was rightly denied in respect of balance 50% of the credit which was availed in the subsequent financial year.
Reasoning of judgment:-The Tribunal found that the goods in question are components which are entitled for credit as capital goods. As per the provisions of Rule 4(2)(b) of the Cenvat Credit Rules the condition that the same should be in the possession of the manufacturer in the subsequent financial year is not applicable to the components. For ready reference, provisions of Rule 4(2)(b) are reproduced below :
“(b) The balance of CENVAT credit may be taken in any financial year subsequent to the financial year in which the capital goods were received in the factory of the manufacturer, or in the premises of the provider of output service, if the capital goods, other than components, spares and accessories, refractories and refractory materials, moulds and dies and goods falling under heading 6805, grinding wheels and the like, and parts thereof falling under heading 6804 of the First Schedule to the Excise Tariff Act, are in the possession of the manufacturer of final products, or provider of output service in such subsequent years.”
 In view of the provisions of Cenvat Credit Rules as above, the tribunal found merit in the contention of the appellant. Therefore, the impugned order was set aside and the appeal was allowed.
(Dictated in Court)
Decision:-Appeal allowed.
Comment:-The gist of the case is that the assessee manufactured glass fibre and availed Cenvat credit in respect of ‘bushing’ as capital goods. 50% of the credit was availed by the assessee in the year of purchase and the rest 50% in the subsequent financial year. The revenue contended that the assessee was not entitled to get 50% of credit in the subsequent financial year as the capital goods were no longer in possession and use of assessee. The Tribunal held that since, the condition that the capital goods should be in possession of the manufacturer in the subsequent financial year is not applicable to components, so , the assessee was entitled to 50% Cenvat credit in the subsequent financial year for component of bushing used in manufacture of glass fibre in accordance with Rule 4(2) of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004.
Prepared by:-Praniti Lalwani

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