Tax Management India. Com
                            Law and Practice: A Digital eBook ...
TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Case Laws Acts / Rules Notifications Circulars Tariff/ ITC HSN Forms Manuals SMS News Articles Highlights
        Home        
 
Discussions Forum
Home Forum Goods and Services Tax - GST This
A Public Forum.
Anyone can participate to share knowledge.
We acknowledge the contributions of Experts/ Authors.

Submit new Issue / Query

← Previous Next →

clerification of word Accessories, Goods and Services Tax - GST

Issue Id: - 113790
Dated: 27-5-2018
By:- Rajiv Agarwal'Alfa'
clerification of word Accessories

  • Contents

Sir Please explain the word 'Accessories'.

Post Reply

Posts / Replies

Showing Replies 1 to 7 of 7 Records

1 Dated: 27-5-2018
By:- Kishan Barai

A thing which can be added to something else in order to make it more useful.


2 Dated: 27-5-2018
By:- KASTURI SETHI

For example 'stand' on car for luggage. You can do without accessory but you can't do without parts of an product. Rightly explained by Sh.Kishan Barai, an expert.


3 Dated: 27-5-2018
By:- YAGAY and SUN

A thing which can be added to something else in order to make it more useful, versatile, or attractive.

‘optional accessories include a battery charger and shoulder strap’

https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/accessory


4 Dated: 27-5-2018
By:- DR.MARIAPPAN GOVINDARAJAN
  1. a subordinate or supplementary part, object, or the like, used mainly for convenience, attractiveness, safety, etc., as a spotlight on an automobile or a lens cover on a camera.
  2. an article or set of articles of dress, as gloves, earrings, or a scarf, that adds completeness, convenience, attractiveness, etc., to one's basic outfit.

5 Dated: 28-5-2018
By:- Himansu Sekhar

will you please go through the larger bench decision in the case of M/s Vandana Global


6 Dated: 28-5-2018
By:- YAGAY and SUN

CX - MS Angles, plates and rounds used in fabricating structural support - Capital Goods - Vandana Global, no more valid: CESTAT

THE Issue: In this Departmental appeal, the short question is whether MS angles, plates and rounds used by the respondent for fabricating structural support to plant and machinery in their factory during the period from October 2006 to April 2007 could be held to be 'capital goods' as defined under Rule 2(a) of the CENVAT Credit Rules (CCR), 2004 for purposes of CENVAT credit. The original authority denied the benefit to the assessee and ordered recovery of CENVAT credit.

The Commissioner (Appeals) granted the benefit to the appellant (assessee). Revenue is in appeal before the Tribunal.

Revenue Arguments: the aforesaid items stood excluded from the ambit of the definition of 'input' by virtue of an explanation to Rule 2(k) and further that the said items were held to be outside the purview of the definition of 'capital goods' by the Tribunal's Larger Bench in the case of Vandana Global Ltd. Vs. CCE, Raipur  2010 (4) TMI 133 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI (LB)

Assessee's Plea : relied on the Supreme Court's judgment in CCE, Jaipur Vs. Rajasthan Spinning & Weaving Mills Ltd. 2010 (7) TMI 12 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA and also on the Madras High Court's judgment in CCE, Tiruchirapalli Vs. M/s. India Cements Ltd. The view taken by the Supreme Court on the facts of the case of Rajasthan Spinning & Weaving Mills Ltd. is squarely applicable to the facts of the present case. It is submitted that, in the instant case, MS angles, plates and rounds were used to fabricate structural supports to plant and machinery whereas, in the case considered by the Supreme Court, similar items were used to fabricate a chimney for a diesel generating (DG) set. The chimney was held to be an integral part of the DG set and items used for its fabrication were held to be accessories of the DG set. The benefit of apex Court's ruling was not available to the Tribunal's Larger Bench when the case of Vandana Global Ltd. (supra) was decided.

Tribunal's Findings: found force in the arguments of the counsel. The ratio of the decision of Apex Court is found to be squarely applicable to the facts of the instant case. The Apex Court was seized of the question whether the steel plates and M.S. channels used in the fabrication of chimney would fall within the purview of Sl. No.5 of the table annexed to Rule 57Q as this Rule stood on or after 1.3.1997.

Obviously, clause (i) of Rule 2(a)(A) is pari materia with clause (3) of the table annexed to Rule 57Q. Similarly, clause (iii) of Rule 2(a)(A) is pari materia with clause (5) of the table annexed to Rule 57Q. In the case of Rajasthan Spinning & Weaving Mills Ltd, the Supreme Court considered the question whether the steel plates and channels used in the fabrication of chimney for DG set would fall within the purview of Sl. No.5 of the table annexed to Rule 57Q. The Supreme Court found that the DG set fell under Heading No.85.02, chapter 85, of First Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act and ipso facto got covered under Sl. No.3 of the table ibid. Supreme Court further noted that the chimney attached to the DG set was undisputedly covered by Sl. No.5 of the table ibid; On this basis, it was held that the chimney was an integral part of the DG set and, therefore, MS channels, plates, etc., used in its fabrication were to be treated as accessories in terms of Sl. No.5 of the table ibid . This ruling was rendered by applying the user test. The facts of the present case are perfectly analogous to those of Rajasthan Spinning· & Weaving Mills Ltd. It is not in dispute that MS angles, plates, etc., were used to fabricate structural support for machinery which was used for manufacturing excisable goods.

It is again, not in dispute that the machinery is squarely covered by clause (i) of Rule 2(a)(A) of the CCR, 2004. The immediate question is whether the structural support for the machinery could be treated as 'capital goods'. Indeed, it should be held to be an integral part of the machinery and hence to be covered by clause (i) ibid . If that be so, as held by the Supreme Court in the aforesaid case, the plates, angles, etc., used for fabricating structural support are liable to fall within the purview of clause (iii) of Rule 2(a) (A). In the result, it has to be held that the MS angles, plates and rounds used by the respondent for fabricating structural support for machinery would qualify to be 'capital goods' for CENVAT credit. Consequently, the impugned order can only be sustained.

Held: The view of the Tribunal's Larger Bench in the case of Vandana Global Ltd, taken much before the Supreme Court decided the case of Rajasthan Spinning & Weaving Mills Ltd, was to the effect that the supporting structure for a machinery could not be considered to be part or accessories of the machinery and, therefore, the steel items used for constructing such supporting structure would not be 'capital goods' for the purpose of CENVAT credit. This view of the Larger Bench is no longer valid as it runs contrary to the subsequent ruling of the apex Court.


7 Dated: 29-5-2018
By:- MUKUND THAKKAR

Two types are accessories is there.

1. Accessories is essential for final products.

2. Accessories is nothing but increase beauty of products.

please Clarify which type of accessories you are talking.


1

Post Reply

← Previous Next →
Discussion Forum
what is new what is new
 


|| Home || About us || Feedback || Contact us || Disclaimer || Terms of Use || Privacy Policy || TMI Database || Members ||

© Taxmanagementindia.com [A unit of MS Knowledge Processing Pvt. Ltd.] All rights reserved.