M/S. Camco Multi Metal LTD., Faridabad vs. State Of Haryana And Others

Held

The High Court noted that the appellant relied on the Delhi High Court judgment in Jagriti Plastics Limited. However, the Tribunal had previously decided against the assessee in M/s Enkay (India) Rubber Co. Private Limited, against which an appeal was pending. Crucially, the High Court had, on the same date, passed an order in VATAP No. 71 of 2012 (which was an appeal against the Tribunal's order in the Enkay case). In that order, the High Court had set aside the impugned order and remanded the matter to the Tribunal. Therefore, in the present case, the High Court considered it appropriate to also remit the appeal to the Tribunal to decide afresh by passing a speaking order after hearing the parties in accordance with law. The issue of entitlement to ITC was not decided on merits by the High Court.

Facts

The appellant, M/s Camco Multi Metal Limited, is engaged in manufacturing Aluminium Alloy Ingots. They purchased Duty Entitlement Passbook (DEPB) licenses within Haryana, paying tax on them, and used these licenses to pay duty on imported raw materials. These raw materials were used to manufacture ingots for sale, on which tax was charged and deposited. The Assessing Authority disallowed the input tax credit (ITC) on the purchase of DEPB licenses. The Joint Excise and Taxation Commissioner (Appeals) dismissed the appeal, relying on a clarification from the Principal Secretary and a prior Tribunal order. The appellant then filed an appeal before the High Court, citing a Delhi High Court judgment.

Key Issues

1. Whether the assessee-appellant is entitled to input tax credit on tax paid on the purchase of DEPB licenses, which were used in importing raw materials for manufacturing goods for sale? This issue turns on the interpretation of provisions related to input tax credit under the Haryana Value Added Tax Act, 2003 (HVAT Act). The appellant argued that DEPB licenses are goods and tax paid on their purchase should be eligible for ITC as they were used in the import of raw materials for manufacturing taxable goods. The revenue's contentions are not explicitly recorded, but their actions indicate opposition to the ITC claim. 2. Whether the provisions of Section 8 of the HVAT Act have been complied with? This question relates to the procedural compliance by the authorities.