The Principal Commissioner vs. M/S Devi Iron And Power PVT. LTD.
Held
The Court held that the matter in issue is squarely covered by a previous decision of a Coordinate Bench in the case of M/s Vandana Global Limited Siltara Industrial Growth Centre Vs. Commissioner, Central Excise and Customs, decided on September 13, 2017. In that decision, the Court, relying on judgments from the Gujarat High Court (Mundra Ports & Special Economic Zone Ltd. Vs. CCE & Cus.) and the Madras High Court (M/s Thiruarooran Sugars Vs Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal), had held that structural steel items would be considered inputs, whether before July 7, 2009, or in view of the clarificatory amendment made on that date. Consequently, CENVAT credit would be admissible on these items. The present appeal was therefore dismissed in the same terms as the Vandana Global case.
Facts
The Principal Commissioner, CGST and Central Excise, Raipur, Chhattisgarh, has appealed a decision of the Tribunal that allowed M/s Devi Iron & Power Pvt. Ltd. to claim CENVAT credit on structural steel items like Angles, Channels, Beams, Joists, Flats, and Plates. The appellant (Revenue) is challenging the Tribunal's order. The respondent (assessee) is not represented. The issue pertains to the classification of these structural steel items as 'input' for the purpose of CENVAT credit. The Tribunal's decision was based on previous CESTAT rulings and a High Court decision.
Key Issues
1. Whether structural steel items, such as Angles, Channels, Beams, Joists, Flats, and Plates, qualify as 'input' for the purpose of availing CENVAT credit under the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004, considering the period before and after the clarificatory amendment of July 7, 2009. The appellant (Revenue) argued that the Tribunal erred in allowing CENVAT credit on these items, relying on its own previous decisions and High Court judgments. The respondent (assessee) did not present any arguments. The Court's decision hinges on whether these structural steel items are to be treated as capital goods or inputs, and if they are inputs, whether CENVAT credit is admissible.
Sections Cited
CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
1 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR TAXC No. 5 of 2018 .The Principal Commissioner, CGST And Central Excise, GST Bhavan, Dhamtari Road, Tikrapara, Raipur, Chhattisgarh. ---- Appellant Versus .M/s Devi Iron & Power Pvt. Ltd. Sponge Iron Division), Village – Tanda, Block Dharsiva, Raipur (CG). ---- Respondent For Appellant Shri Maneesh Sharma, Advocate. For Respondent None. Hon'ble Shri Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra Hon'ble Shri Justice Ram Prasanna Sharma Order On Board by Hon'ble Prashant Kumar Mishra J. 11/05/2018
.
Challenge in this appeal is to the said part of the Tribunal's order whereby the respondent has been allowed a CENVAT Credit by treating items e.g. Angles, Channels, Beams, Joists, Flats, Plates etc. as input on the strength of decision rendered by the Tribunal in the matters of M/s Singhal Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CCE, Raipur- 2016-TIOL-2451-CESTAT-DEL, M/s Lafarge India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CCE, Raipur- 2016-TIOL-2875-CESTAT- DEL. & CCE, Guntur Vs. Andhra Cements Ltd.-2009 (247) ELT 651 (Tri.- Bang.). .
Admittedly, the subject items are commonly known as structural steel items, which have been held to be capital goods or input by Division Bench
The judgment continues below.
Read the full judgment
A free account opens 10 full GST judgments a month (one account works on both bharattax.net and this site). Re-reading one you have already opened does not count again.
The summary, the parties, the sections and the citations above are open to everyone and always will be. Only the text of the order and the PDF are metered.
Reproduced from the public record of the Chhattisgarh High Court. Verify against the court's own copy before relying on it. Income tax judgments are on bharattax.net.