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-2012/13-1573

Whether M.S. Plats, M.S. Angles and joist, HR sheets etc. used for repair and maintenance of the plants and machinery are eligible for Cenvat Credit ?

Case:- SHAHABAD CO-OP. SUGAR MILIS LTD. VS COMMR. OF C. EX., PANCHKULA
 
Citation: - 2013 (291)-E.L.T. 583 (Tri.-Del.)

Brief facts: - The point of dispute in this appeal is as to whether M.S. plates, M.S. Angles & joist, HR sheets etc. used in the factory by the appellant for repair and maintenance of the plants and machinery for replacement of worn out parts or for fabrication of structures and machinery used in production of sugar and molasses are eligible for cenvat credit as inputs or capital goods. Initially this issue had been decided in favour of the appellant by the jurisdictional assistant commissioner vide order in original dated 12-5-2004. This order, of Assistant Commissioner was challenged by the department before the Commissioner and the Commissioner vide order in appeal dated 23-12-2005 set aside the Assistant Commissioner’s order and disallowed the credit and confirmed the cenvat credit demand. Against this order, the appellant filed an appeal before the tribunal, which was disposed of by final order no. 393/2008 SM (BR), dated 29-1-2008 by which the matter was remanded to the commissioner for de novo decision after examining the use of these items and also the case laws cited by the learned advocate- which included the judgement of Hon’ble Rajasthan high court in the case of Union of India v. Hindustan Zinc Ltd. reported in 2007 (214) E.L.T. 510 (Raj.). In course of de novo proceedings, the commissioner vide order in original dated 23-1-2009 again disallowed the credit on there items observing that the same are not covered by the definition of capital goods and are used for fabrication of structure. Against this order of the Commissioner, the present appeal has been filed.
 
Appellant’s Contention:- Shri O.P. Bathla, consultant, the learned counsel for the appellant, pleaded that the items, in question, are used either for repair and maintenance of the plants and machinery and for fabrication of machinery parts or fabrication of structures which are used with the machines, that none of the items are used for foundation or any supporting structure, that the statement dated 25-2-2004 of Shri Rajiv Juneja, accountant of the appellant firm has been misconstrued by the commissioner(Appeal), that since the items, in question are used either for fabrication of parts of capital goods or for repair and maintenance, the same are eligible for Cenvat Credit and in this regard he relies upon the judgement of Union India Vs. Hindustan Zinc Ltd. (supra), wherein it was held that M.S./ S.S. plates used in the workshop for repair of and maintenance of plants and machinery which is used in the manufacture of final product are eligible for Cenvat Credit, that same view has been taken in the case of CCE, Salem v. India Cements Ltd.reported in 2006(199) E.L.T. 75 (Tri-Chennai), and that in view of this, the impugned order is not correct.
 
Respondent Contention:- Shri Anil Khanna, the leaned Departmental Representative defended the impugned order by reiterating the Commissioner findings in the impugned order and pleaded that the items, in question, have been mainly used for fabrication of structures, which have been used as supporting structures and, hence in view of larger bench of the tribunal in the case of Vandana Global Ltd. Vs. CCE, Raipur reported in 2010 (253) E.L.T. 440 (Tri-LB), the Cenvat Credit would not be available . He, therefore, pleaded that as such there is no infirmity in the impugned order.
  
Reasoning of Judgment:- It was concluded by the Tribunal that forthe fact that the items, in question, have been used for fabrication of supporting structure, the statement of Shri Rajiv Juneja of the appellant- company has been relied. However, on going through his statement, it is found that Shri Rajiv Juneja in his statement nowhere stated that the Angles, Channels, plates steel wires etc. had been used for fabrication of supporting structures. There is no mention in this statement that the structures referred to are the supporting structure for the machinery.  When these items are used for fabrication of various machinery or their parts, the same would be covered by the definition of ‘input’ and would be eligible for Cenvat Credit. When these items are used for repair and maintenance of plant and machinery,  the Cenvat Credit would be admissible in respect of these, in view of judgment of Hon’ble Rajasthan high court in the case of Union of India v. Hindustan Zinc Ltd. (supra), and of the tribunal in the case of CCE, Salem v. India Cements Ltd. (supra) wherein it has been held that M.S./S.S. plates used for repair and maintenance of the machinery, which is used for manufacture of final product would be eligible for Cenvat Credit. Though, the Commissioner in the impugned order has observed that the judgment of Hon’ble Rajasthan High Court in the case of  Union of India v. Hindustan Zinc Ltd. (supra), is not applicable no reasons for the same have been given. In view of this , the impugned order disallowing the Cenvat Credit in respect of H.R. sheets, M.S. Plates etc. used for repair and maintenance or for fabrication of machines and parts thereof is not sustainable. The same is set aside. The appeal is allowed with consequential relief.
 
Decision:- Appeal allowed.
 
Comment:-The essence of this case is that the M.S./S.S. Plates used for repair and maintenance of plants and machinery for the production of final product is eligible for availing cenvat credit as far as the same is not used for the supporting structures of the capital goods.

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