Post by account_disabled on Feb 27, 2024 1:37:14 GMT -8
Arises when it comes to inputs that are incorporated into the final product or that are consumed in the course of the industrialization process, in accordance with §1 of article 20 of Complementary Law [7] . Other judgments go further and require that the purchased items "be incorporated into the final product, in order to modify the way it presents itself" [8] . Still others share the line that "its integration into the final product is necessary, that is, consumed in the process immediately and completely" [9] . There are also decisions along the lines that, to be considered "consumed in the industrialization process" , the essentiality requirement must be met [10] . The distinction of what is or is not essential is a case-by-case basis.
It has already been decided, for example, that plastic bags and films used by supermarkets to supply perishable products qualify for credit, while bags and trays in general do not . It is in this context that the decision handed down by the 1st Section of the STJ itself in matters of crediting PIS and Cofins in the acquisition of inputs, adopted in repetitive Chinese Europe Phone Number List appeal nº 1,221,170 [12] , in which the concepts of essentiality and relevance were defined as criteria delimiting the right to credit [13] . At the time, the thesis was established that "the concept of input must be assessed in light of the criteria of essentiality or relevance, that is, considering the indispensability or importance of a given item — good or service — for the performance of the economic activity carried out by the taxpayer.
Essentiality concerns goods that "if removed (from the production process) would make it impossible or, at least, reduce the final result of the product" , while relevance means that the item "although not indispensable for the elaboration of the product itself or the provision of the service , integrate the production process" . If, on the one hand, it is clear that the non-cumulative PIS/Cofins and ICMS regimes have characteristics that are unique to them and cannot be confused with each other, being regulated by their own legislation and with different techniques for eliminating non-cumulative status, on the other, It is no less certain that the repetitive precedent of the 1st Section in matters of PIS/Cofins may have part of its effects radiated to another situation in which the questionio iuris has the same factual-legal substrate. This applies especially to the discussion about the intermediate item as part of the production process.
It has already been decided, for example, that plastic bags and films used by supermarkets to supply perishable products qualify for credit, while bags and trays in general do not . It is in this context that the decision handed down by the 1st Section of the STJ itself in matters of crediting PIS and Cofins in the acquisition of inputs, adopted in repetitive Chinese Europe Phone Number List appeal nº 1,221,170 [12] , in which the concepts of essentiality and relevance were defined as criteria delimiting the right to credit [13] . At the time, the thesis was established that "the concept of input must be assessed in light of the criteria of essentiality or relevance, that is, considering the indispensability or importance of a given item — good or service — for the performance of the economic activity carried out by the taxpayer.
Essentiality concerns goods that "if removed (from the production process) would make it impossible or, at least, reduce the final result of the product" , while relevance means that the item "although not indispensable for the elaboration of the product itself or the provision of the service , integrate the production process" . If, on the one hand, it is clear that the non-cumulative PIS/Cofins and ICMS regimes have characteristics that are unique to them and cannot be confused with each other, being regulated by their own legislation and with different techniques for eliminating non-cumulative status, on the other, It is no less certain that the repetitive precedent of the 1st Section in matters of PIS/Cofins may have part of its effects radiated to another situation in which the questionio iuris has the same factual-legal substrate. This applies especially to the discussion about the intermediate item as part of the production process.