Denial of Clarification Request on Excise Duty Credit Eligibility

The applicant's request for clarification on the admissibility of Excise duty, CVD, SAD, and VAT paid on Capital Goods for claiming credit under Section 140(2) of the CGST Act and Andhra Pradesh GST Act was denied. The authority ruled that transitional relief did not align with Input Tax Credit definitions, leading to the application being deemed beyond their jurisdiction under Section 98(2) of both Acts. The application was declared "not admitted" as it fell outside the relevant provisions' scope.

---

---

Issues:
1. Admissibility of Excise duty, CVD, and SAD paid on Capital Goods for claiming credit under Section 140(2) of the CGST Act.
2. Admissibility of VAT paid on Capital Goods for claiming credit under Section 140(2) of the Andhra Pradesh GST Act.

Analysis:

Issue 1: Admissibility of Excise duty, CVD, and SAD paid on Capital Goods:
The applicant, engaged in upgrading iron ore, sought advance ruling on the admissibility of claiming credit under Section 140(2) of the CGST Act for Excise duty, CVD, and SAD paid on Capital Goods purchased before July 1, 2017. The jurisdictional officer confirmed no pending proceedings. The applicant argued that transitional credit is akin to Input Tax Credit and should be allowed under Section 97(2)(d) of the CGST Act. However, the authority opined that transitional relief, not falling under Input Tax Credit as defined in the Act, is beyond the scope of Section 97(2)(d). Consequently, the application was deemed beyond the authority's jurisdiction under Section 98(2) of the CGST Act.

Issue 2: Admissibility of VAT paid on Capital Goods:
The applicant also sought clarification on claiming credit under Section 140(2) of the Andhra Pradesh GST Act for VAT paid on Capital Goods purchased pre-July 2017. The applicant contended that transition credits should be considered as Input Tax Credit, supported by a ruling from the State of Uttarakhand. However, the authority, after considering the statutory provisions and submissions, concluded that the transitional relief falls outside the definition of Input Tax Credit under the CGST Act. Therefore, the application was declared inadmissible under Section 98(2) of the APGST Act.

In conclusion, the authority determined that the questions raised by the applicant did not fall within the ambit of Section 97(2)(d) of the CGST Act. Consequently, the application by the applicant firm was deemed beyond the jurisdiction of the authority under Section 98(2) of both the CGST Act and the APGST Act. The order passed stated that the application was "not admitted" due to being outside the scope of the relevant provisions.

---