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 /2016-17/3412

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