Chartered Accountant
Bookmark and Share
click here to subscribe our newsletter
 
 
Corporate News *  The GSTN has issued an Advisory dated 21.04.2026 about the introduction of an Offline Tool for the Invoice Management System (IMS)  *  CBIC extends due dates for filing of FORM GSTR 3B  for the month of April 2026 *  Interest cannot be imposed in adjudication order, if not demanded/quantified in show cause notice : Allahabad HC *  Wheelchairs with toileting facility eligible for exemption: CESTAT affirms customs duty exemption to importer *  Industries urge GST council to allow inverted duty refunds on input services *  Tamil Nadu GST dept introduced virtual hearing facility for GST appeals under under section 107 of the TNGST act: detailed guidelines  *  CIC urges authorities to implement GST evasion complaint tracking system *  Even if the assessee opts "NO" for personal hearing in form DRC-06 ,The mandatory requirement under section 75(4) to grant opportunity of hearing cannot be waived:Gujarat High Court  *  Glufosinate imports curbs imposed by govt *  Government extends Re-import period for exported cut & polished diamonds *  CIC flags lack of tracking system for tax evasion complaints,urges GST authorities to improve transparency *  No Custodial Interrogation needed in GST fraud case based on documentary evidence already in Department's Possession : Chattisgarh HC *  Orders under section cannot be sustained if passed without considering the taxpayer's objections and without granting a personal hearing:Gujarat High Court *  Mere cancellation of supplier's registration cannot,by itself,justify denial of ITC or cancellation of the recipient's registration:Bombay High Court *  High Court sets aside GST notice citing factual errors and natural justice violations *  Provisional Bank Attachment under Section. 110 of Customs Act Unsustainable Beyond Statutory period without Extension order: Bombay HC orders to defreeze accounts *  Post Clearance MRP Alteration by Distributor Does not attract Differential Customs Duty: CESTAT *  DGFT Expands scope of 'Screws' classification under RoDTEP Scheme  *  E-way bills surze to all time high of 140.6 million in March *  GST Exemption Allowed on Pure Labour Services for Standalone Houses: AAR  *  GST Payable Only on Margin in Second-Hand Car Sales, Subject to Strict Conditions and No ITC Claim: AAR *  DGFT rolls out procedure for allocation of calcined coke *  GST portal update : Pre-deposit amount now editable in Appeals *  J&K HC declared TMT scrap a 'Specified Good' eligibile for GST refunds under Support Scheme  *  Pigmy agents are employees of banks; no GST can be levied on commission  paid to them : Karnataka HC *  DGFT Revises HS Code Description for Screws Under RoDTEP *  GST Registration Cancellation Invalid Without Proper Service of Notice: Allahabad High Court. *  Bengaluru CGST | GST Backlog Appeals Deadline Fixed at June 30, 2026 *  No Time Bar on Refund of Service Tax for Services Not Rendered: CESTAT  Remands Indiabulls Case for Unjust Enrichment Check. *  Supreme Court Holds Renewable Energy Incentive Must Benefit Generators, Not Be Adjusted in Tariff
Subject News *   Delhi HC Quashes Order, Says Reminder Cannot Validate Improperly Served GST SCN *  KARNATAKA HIGH COURT REMANDS GST SHORTFALL MATTER DUE TO ABSENCE OF PERSONAL HEARING   *  CESTAT cancels confiscation and penalties on imported computer cabinet cases: Custom duty restricted to 111 surplus units *  Deposit of tax during search or investigation cannot be treated as 'Voluntary Payment' : Bombay High Court *  Section 76 of the CGST cannot be invoked where the tax has already been duly deposited, even if through another registration of the same entity: Madras High Court *  Sec 74 allows use of material regardless of source; illegality or flaws in section 67 search do not vitiate valid adjudication: HC *  Inter-State transfer of ITC on Amalgamation permissible as given under section 18(3) read with rule 41 of the CGST rules, 2017: Gujarat High Court *  HC: No GST on commisson paid to Pigmy Agents *  IGST refund denial on illegible bill of lading invalid absent chance to furnish docs; merit reconsideration in appeals directed: HC *  ITC is not admissible on GST paid on leasehold rights of land used fpr setting up an air seperation plant: AAAR,Tamil Nadu *  GST: No penalty under Section 74 after voluntary ITC reversal due to non-existent supplier : High Court *  TN AAAR denies GST ITC on Land Lease under Sec. 17(5)(d) for setting up plant and machinery *  GST proceedings quashed as notices sent to old address, despite updated address in registration *  Importer Can’t Be Penalised for Alleged IGCR Procedural Lapses Without Evidence of Departmental Error: CESTAT *  Structured Healthcare Training Not ‘Charitable Activity’, 18% GST Payable: AAR  *  CESTAT As The Appellate Authority For Central Sales Tax Disputes: A Paradigm Shift Under Finance Act, 2023 *   Rs. 25K Cost Imposed On SGST Joint Commissioner for Attaching Bank  Accounts Without Forming Mandatory “Opinion”: Bombay HC *   Ex-Parte GST Order Without Hearing Violates Natural Justice: Karnataka  High Court Quashes Adjudication and Bank Attachment.  *   Retrospective GST Cancellation Can’t Invalidate Genuine Transactions:  Jaipur Commissioner (Appeals) Quashes Rs. 95,670 ITC Demand. *   GST Pre-Deposit Non-Compliance: Allahabad High Court Allows Appeal  Subject to Rs. 30 Lakh Balance Deposit, Recognises Offline Filing. *  Documentary Nature of Evidence: Allahabad High Court Grants Bail in Rs. 32.66 Crore Fake ITC Fraud Case *  Supreme Court Flags Systemic Bias in Army’s Permanent Commission Process for Women Officers *  Re-Determination of Land Compensation Can Be Based on Appellate Court Awards, Clarifies Scope of S. 28-A: Supreme Court. *  Supreme Court Imposes Rs. 5 Lakh Costs On Rent Authority Officer For Acting Beyond Jurisdiction. *  DGGI Meerut | Court Denies Bail to Accused in Claiming Fake ITC And Export Refunds *  Denial of GST Rate Revision Benefit to Contractor Violates Article 14: Rajasthan HC *  GST Registration Cancellation for Non-Filing of Returns: Gauhati High Court Directs Restoration on Compliance. *   Supreme Court Quashes FEMA Adjudication Orders, Revives Proceedings at  Show Cause Stage. *   Higher Rank, Harsher Punishment Justified: Supreme Court Restores Dismissal  of Bank Manager in Misappropriation Case. *   Limitation for Export Refund to Be Counted from Foreign Exchange Realisation,  Not From Export Invoices Issuance: CESTAT  

Comments

Print   |    |  Comment

PJ/Case Laws/2011-12/1210

Whether ‘capital goods cleared as such’ includes capital goods cleared as such after being used in terms of Rule 3 (4) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004

 

 
 
Case:- Commissioner of C. Ex. Chandigarh versus Raghav Alloys Ltd.
 
Citation:- 2011(268) E.L.T 161(P&H)
 
Issue: -Whether ‘capital goods cleared as such’ includes capital goods cleared as such after being used in terms of Rule 3 (4) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004?
 
Brief Facts: - Respondent-assessee is engaged in the manufacture Non-Alloy Steel Ingots. In the year 1994, they purchased an Induction Furnace and took credit of Rs 1.30 lakh equal to duty paid on the said Induction Furnace. They have used the said machine till 2003 and sold the same in May 2003 after payment of duty of Rs 32000/- i.e. 16% on the sale price of Rs. 2, 00,000/-. Respondent paid duty on the transaction.
 
Revenue formed opinion that Respondent should pay duty equal to the Cenvat credit availed at the time of purchase of the machinery. Accordingly, show cause notice was issued to the respondent raising demand of differential amount of credit i.e. Rs. 98000/-. Revenue also sought to impose penalty. The Adjudicating Authority confirmed the demand and further imposed an equal amount of duty under Section 11AC r/w Rule 13 of the Rules.
 
Respondent preferred an appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals). The Commissioner (Appeals) relying upon the Board Circular dated 1-7-2002 allowed the appeal. Revenue preferred an appeal before the Tribunal. The Tribunal ex-parte allowed appeal of the Revenue reported at [2008(224) E.L.T. 595 (Tri-Del)].
 
Respondent therefore approached the High Court. The High Court set aside the ex-parte order and remanded the matter to the Tribunal to decide the appeal afresh after hearing the Respondent.
 
The Tribunal vide its Final Order dated 23-4-2009 reported at [2009(242) E.L.T. 124(Tribunal)] dismissed the appeal of Revenue holding that the respondent has paid the correct amount of duty. The Tribunal had relied upon the judgment given in the case of Cummins India Limited v/s CCE, Pune-III [2007 (219) ELT 911 (Tri-Mumbai)] which is upheld by Bombay High Court [2009 (234) ELT A120 (Bom). Reliance was also placed on CCE, Ludhiana v/s Nahar Fibres [2007 (220) ELT 855].
 
Hence, Revenue is in appeal before the High Court.
 
Appellant’s Contention: -Revenue contended that the Tribunal has wrongly distinguished decision of the Larger Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Modernova Plastyles Private Limited VS CCE, Raigad [2008 (232) ELT 29 (Tri.-LB)] wherein the Tribunal has held that the expression as such has to be interpreted as commonly understood, which is in “original form” and “without any additional alteration or modification”.
  
Respondent’s Contention: -Respondent contended that in Para 3 of the judgment of the Larger Bench of the Tribunal in Modernova Plastyles Private Limited, it has been noted that the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Cummins India Limited, which has been upheld by Bombay High Court deals with the provision of Rule 3(4) (c) and does not consider the provision of Rule 4 (5) (a). It was submitted that the Larger Bench of Tribunal has considered the provision of Rule 4 (5) (a) and not Rule 3(4) (c) whereas the present case is with respect to Rule 3(4) of the Rules. So the case of the respondent is scarcely covered with the earlier decision of the Tribunal, which has been upheld by the Bombay High Court.
 
Reasoning of the Judgment:-The High Court held that the Tribunal has rightly noted that unlike inputs, which get consumed 100% with the same are taken up for use in relation to manufacture of finished goods, capital goods are used over a period of time. The capital goods loose their identity as capital goods only when after use over a period of time, the same has become in-serviceable and fit to be scrapped. The object of the Cenvat credit on capital goods is to avoid the cascading effect of the duty. If even after being used for a couple of years, the Cenvat credit is required to be reversed then it would certainly defeat the object of the Scheme.  To avoid misuse of the scheme in the Rules, it has been provided that if the machine is cleared as such the assessee shall be liable to pay duty equal to the amount Cenvat Credit availed. The machines which are cleared after being utilized cannot be treated as machines cleared ‘as such’. With effect from 13-11-2007, a provision has been added to Rule 3(5) of the Cenvat Credit Rules providing that the Capital goods on which Cenvat Credit has taken are removed after being used, the manufacture shall pay the amount equal to Cenvat Credit taken on the said capital goods reduced by 2.5% of each quarter of year or part thereof from the date of taking the Cenvat credit. The Board has also in the Circular dated 1-7-2002 clarified that in the case of clearance of goods after being put to use, the value shall be determined after allowing the benefit to depreciation as per rate fixed in Board letter dated 26-5-1993. The machine cleared after being put to use for nine year cannot be treated as cleared ‘as such’. Insertion of proviso w.e.f. 13-11-2007 makes it clear that there is difference between machines cleared without putting into use and cleared after use. The Bombay High Court has upheld the view of the Tribunal in case of Cummins India Limited V. CCE, Pune-III, 2007(219) E.L.T. 911(Tri-Mumbai). The Tribunal in the case of Nahar Fibers has also dismissed the appeal of Revenue and there is nothing to show that the said decision of the Tribunal has been set aside by any court. No merit in appeal. Question answered in favour of Assessee and against the Revenue.
 
Judgment: -Appeal dismissed.
Comment:- this will settle the controversy on this issue. Earlier when the depreciation norms were deleted in new Cenvat credit Rules then the tribunal has decided that there is no need to pay duty on used capital goods. But later on, it was decided that complete cenvat credit is to be reversed. But now the correct verdict has come. Moreover, there is no dispute after 13.11.2007.
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