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 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