Chartered Accountant
Bookmark and Share
click here to subscribe our newsletter
 
 
Corporate News *  Dept. Can’t Classify Product as Zarda Scented Tobacco After Repeatedly Approving It As Chewing Tobacco: CESTAT *  Mere Uploading Of GST Order On Portal Is Not “Valid” Service: Tripura HC *  CGST Can Proceed Even If SGST Closed Similar Case Earlier: Delhi HC *  SC upholds 28% GST on online gaming with retrospective effect. *  West Bengal Govt cuts E-way Bill Threshold limit to Rs. 50,000 for intra-state goods movement. *  Criminal Prosecution Under Central Excise Act Can’t Continue After CESTAT Sets Aside Duty Demand on Merits: Punjab & Haryana High Court. *  Madras High Court Quashes GST Assessment Orders for Denial of Personal Hearing; Remands Matter Subject to 10% Deposit *  Ex Parte GST Order: Madras High Court Directs Immediate Removal of Bank/ITC Attachment Upon 25% Deposit *  J.K. Cement Receives GST Demand Order of Rs 8,02,113/- from Ahmedabad Tax Authority *  Delhi Police EOW Busts Alleged Rs. 128 Crore GST Fake Invoice Network. *  REPLY TO SCN CAN’T BE TREATED AS “EMPTY FORMALITY”: ORISSA HIGH COURT QUASHES GST DEMAND OF RS. 57.30 LAKH *  Challenge to CGST Provisions restricting ITC to Bonafide Purchasers : Allahabad HC issues notice *  CBIC Notifies Revised Customs Tariff Values for Edible Oils, Gold, Silver, Brass Scrap and Areca Nuts *  Delhi HC Orders Removal of GST Attachment After Statutory 1 Year Period Expired *  GSTAT Extends Relaxed Appeal Filing Guidelines till December 31, 2026 *  AO fails to Provide Import - Export Data from DGFT to Taxpayer for Reconciliation *  Gold, Silver Imports To Get Costlier As Govt Raises Customs Duty To 10%  *  GSTAT Enables Pre-Payment Access to Document Upload and Checklist for GST Appeal Filing *  GST Portal Restrictions Can’t Override Statute: Gujarat HC Allows Cross-State Transfer Of CGST ITC After Amalgamation *  Centre Revises HS Codes for Large Diameter Steel Pipes Used in Oil & Gas Pipelines *  Customs Duty Liability Arises On Warehouse Clearance Date: Supreme Court *  Government lifts export ban on de-oiled rice bran *  CESTAT Grants 12% Interest on Pre-Deposit for Investigation from Date of Deposit till Refund and Denies Interest on Interest. *  Government Overhauls GST Classification Framework for Non-Alcoholic Beverages; Fruit Juice Drinks, Milk-Based Beverages and Caffeinated Drinks to Attract Revised 5% and 40% GST Rates from May 1, 2026 *  India’s gross GST collections hit a record Rs 2.42 lakh crore in April, up 8.7% *  Customs clearance stalled, revenue hit over MRP dispute *  Shipping Corporation explores Middle East routes as Hormuz tensions disrupt cargo movement *  India, Kenya signs MoU for exchange of pre-arrival customs information *  No demand of Taxes under Reverse Charge if Tax Already Discharged by Service Provider under forward charge *  The India-New Zealand Free Trade Agreement, signed "once-in-a-generation" deal that eliminates tariffs on 100% of Indian exports to New Zealand
Subject News *  Consignment Sales Can’t Be Reclassified as Inter-State Sales Based on Pre-Agreement Evidence: CESTAT *  Exporter Can’t Be Denied Advance Authorization Benefit Due To ICEGATE Technical Glitch: Delhi High Court *  No GST Demand For Mere Wrong Set-Off Of IGST Credit Under CGST And SGST Heads: Kerala HC. *  Cenvat Credit Can’t Be Denied on Input Services Having Nexus With Manufacturing Activities: CESTAT *  Pending Proceedings Can’t Survive Without Saving Clause: Calcutta High Court Quashes GST Demand of Rs. 6.28 Crore After Omission of Rule 96(10) *  Madras HC Quashes GST Demands on TASMAC (Tamil Nadu State Marketing Corporation) Bar Licence Fee *  GST Proceedings Cannot Survive Omitted Rule Without Saving Clause: Calcutta HC *  Provisional Release Can’t Be Denied Solely On Dept. Suspicion Of Misclassification And Undervaluation Of Imported Goods: CESTAT *  Businesses Should Not Be Kept Outside GST Regime Without Due Process: Gauhati High Court *  Punjab & Haryana HC Directs Reconsideration of Contractors’ Claim for Additional GST Payment After Tax Rate Hike From 12% to 18% *  S. 108 Statements Can’t Be Sole Basis Without Following Section 138B Procedure: CESTAT *  Bombay High Court Frames Key Questions on Mandatory Distribution of ITC U/s 20 CGST Act *  Filing of Annexure-B for Refund Applications involving Accumulated ITC using the offline utility in GST portal: GSTN *  No Service Tax on Parent Company’s Un-Invoiced Cost Allocations Without Actual Service or Consideration: CESTAT  *  Calcutta High Court Upholds GST Classification of Polypropylene Leno Bags as Plastic Products *  DRC-01 Summary Can’t Replace Mandatory SCN: Gauhati High Court *  GSTAT Issues Major Bench Allocation Framework; All Appeals to First Go Before Division Bench *  ITC Blocking Without Reasoned Order Violates Rule 86A; Punjab & Haryana HC Directs Release of Credit *  Allahabad HC Refuses Bail to CGST Superintendent In Rs. 70 Lakh Bribery Case *  S.130 Can’t Be Invoked Without Prior Tax Determination U/s 73/74: Allahabad High Court Quashes GST Confiscation Proceedings *  SC grants Bail to Rs 54cr GST case  *  Karnataka HC Sets Aside Duplicate GST Orders, Orders Fresh Hearing on GSTIN Cancellation *  DRC-01 Summary Can’t Replace Mandatory SCN: Gauhati High Court *  Transfer Of Unutilized ITC After Amalgamation - Supreme Court Issues Notice *  PUNJAB & HARYANA HC QUASHES GST CANCELLATION NOTICE FOR FAILURE TO PROVIDE CBIC ENQUIRY REPORT *  LICENSE FEE, TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE CHARGES NOT INCLUDIBLE IN CUSTOMS VALUE UNLESS THEY ARE A CONDITION OF SALE: CESTAT *  DELHI HC ORDERS REMOVAL OF GST ATTACHMENT AFTER STATUTORY 1 YEAR PERIOD EXPIRED *  CUSTOMS BROKER CAN’T BE FAULTED JUST BECAUSE EXPORTER’S GST REGISTRATION WAS PREVIOUSLY CANCELLED: CESTAT   *  Supreme Court Dismisses Review Plea Against Delhi HC Ruling Holding Real Operator Behind Fake GST Firms Liable As ‘Taxable Person  *  GST Appeal Can’t Be Rejected Merely Because DRC-07 Was Not Uploaded On Portal: Bombay High Court  

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