Chartered Accountant
Bookmark and Share
click here to subscribe our newsletter
 
 
Corporate News *  Service tax penalty can’t survive when assessee acted on dept.’s own view of non-taxability: Delhi High Court. *  GST section 74 extended limitation questionable when form 26AS mismatch was already known: Karnataka High Court grants interim relief. *  CGST demand prima facie impermissible after state GST settlement under section 128A: Bombay High Court. *  Supreme Court asks GSTAT to sympathetically consider delay as taxpayers pursued remedy before wrong forum. *  Supreme Court stays Tripura High Court ruling protecting genuine buyers from ITC denial over supplier’s GST default. *  Diary entries alone can’t prove clandestine removal of goods: CESTAT quashes excise penalty on steel trader. *  Customs could investigate preferential tariff claims even before sec. 28DA: Delhi High Court. *  Customs dept. relied on fake AI generated case laws: supreme court quashes Rs. 425.28 crore penalty. *  No GST exemption in affiliation and annual registration charges for admission or conduct Of examinations: GSTAT. *  Mere invoices, cheque payments insufficient to establish genuine movement of goods: GSTAT restores Rs. 43.44 lakh ITC demand. *  Consolidated GST show cause notice covering multiple financial years is not without jurisdiction: Delhi High Court. *  Construction of independent houses on separate plots not taxable as ‘Residential Complex’ without common facilities: CESTAT. *  GST penalty exceeding statutory maximum unsustainable; Allahabad High Court quashes ? 50,000/- penalty after taxpayer filed return and paid late fee. *  GST order against standard chartered bank passed without hearing set aside by Bombay High Court. *  Retracted statements can’t be relied upon without cross-examination: CESTAT quashes gold confiscation. *  Burden to prove misclassification lies on customs department: CESTAT. *  CESTAT quashes Rs. 98 lakh excise demand on clearance of used refractory brick scrap. *  Service tax demand on irrigation works quashed: Karnataka High Court rules sale of goods component not taxable as service. *  GSTAT restores tax and penalty for transporting iron scrap without E-way bill citing intent to evade tax. *  Madras High Court stays GST recovery from directors without opportunity to show cause under section 89. *  Madras high court stays GST recovery notice against directors; finds prima facie case on applicability of section 79(1)(c). *  Procedural lapses can’t justify harsh punishment without serious customs breach: CESTAT quashes customs broker licence revocation. *  Service tax payable on land leasing and sports complex charges: CESTAT. *  Settled customs dispute can’t be reopened through Article 226 challenge to interest liability: Delhi High Court. *  Mere facilitation of customs clearance can’t establish knowledge of smuggling: Madras High Court. *  GST registration cancellation stayed: Allahabad High Court questions 99% ITC utilisation cap under rule 86B. *  Composition scheme lapses automatically on crossing Rs. 1.5 crore turnover: GSTAT. *  Gujarat High Court quashes GST cancellation orders after officer relied on non-existent AI-generated case laws. *  Importers liable for customs duty benefits availed through manipulated scrips: Delhi High Court. *  Procedural E-way bill lapse alone can’t justify penalty where genuine transaction and absence of tax evasion are established: GSTAT.
Subject News *  Documentary evidence dominates probe, further custody unwarranted: mumbai court grants bail in Rs. 22.44 crore customs duty evasion case. *  Business premises can’t remain sealed for non-participation in GST search: Allahabad High Court. *  GST pre-deposit must be refunded proportionately when taxpayer partly succeeds in appeal: Bombay High Court. *  Supreme Court grants 30 days to file GST appeal; keeps pre-deposit issue open due to deposit in parallel CGST proceedings. *  GST demand can’t exceed amount proposed in SCN: Allahabad High Court quashes Rs. 20.47 Crore order. *  Hundreds-of-crores GST demand and heavy 10% pre-deposit no ground to bypass statutory appeal: Punjab & Haryana High Court. *  Delhi High Court refuses to entertain challenge to gold confiscation due to statutory appeal remedy and unexplained delay. *  Procedural error in customs broker licence inquiry can be rectified through remand: Delhi High Court. *  GSTR-2A mismatch alone can’t justify ITC denial without invoice-wise verification; personal hearing mandatory: GSTAT. *  GST order passed without uploading personal hearing notices violates sec. 75(4): Allahabad High Court. *  TAX EVASION - Sec. 74 GST SCN quashed for not spelling out fraud, wilful misstatement or suppression: Allahabad High Court. *  STPI’s SOFTEX certification and NoC charges taxable as business support services: CESTAT. *  Suspicion can’t replace proof: CESTAT quashes penalty in alleged gold-smuggling operation. *   Limitation runs from communication of order: Madras High Court upholds rejection of delayed GST Appeals. *  Rajasthan High Court quashes GST demand over unsigned show cause notice. *  ITC recovery upheld where supplier failed to deposit GST: Rajasthan High Court. *  Customs commissioner’s empowered to make port trust liable for duty on pilfered goods: Supreme Court. *  Rectification proceedings can’t be used to challenge an uncontested GST assessment through a writ petition: Andhra Pradesh HC. *  GST proceedings against deceased proprietor unsustainable without notice to legal heir: GSTAT. *  Mere availment of ineligible self-assessed ITC doesn’t amount to suppression without evidence of fraud or wilful misstatement: GSTAT. *  Disposal of mining overburden by entity authorised by mining lease holder constitutes taxable service: CESTAT. *  Toll plaza data not mandatory for ITC refund: GSTAT. *  Disputed GST fraud allegations require investigation: Punjab and Haryana High Court makes interim bail absolute in alleged fraud and GST fraud case. *  Non-manufacturer contractor liable to deposit excess excise duty collected from buyer: CESTAT. *  GST order can’t reject taxpayer’s reply as “not satisfactory” without reasons: Madhya Pradesh High Court. *  Uncorroborated statements can’t establish alleged diversion of duty-free goods: CESTAT. *  Erection services were not liable to service tax prior to 10th september 2004: CESTAT. *  Sec. 74 GST notice must spell out statutory ingredients for invoking extended tax demand proceedings: Allahabad High Court. *  No jurisdictional bar under section 6(2)(b) in parallel CGST SGST proceedings: Delhi High Court refuses to bypass GST appeal remedy. *  Madras High Court remits GST demand for fresh adjudication after taxpayer claims it was unaware of SCN following business closure.  

Comments

Publish Date: 01 Mar, 2011
Print   |    |  Comment

Change in definition of "Input Service" under Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004

Change in definition of “Input Services” under Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004

Prepared By: -
CA. Pradeep Jain
 Sukhvinder KaurLLB[FYIC]

 

Introduction: - This year budget has seen a major change in definition of inputs and input services. Through this piece of articulation we intend to study the impact of change in definition of input services.
 
Old definition:-The earlier definition of ‘input services’ is given in Rule 2 (l) which reads as under:
 
(l) "input service" means any service,-
 
(i) used by a provider of taxable service for providing an output service; or

(ii) used by the manufacturer, whether directly or indirectly, in or in relation to the manufacture of final products and clearance of final products, upto the place of removal,

and includes services used in relation to setting up, modernization, renovation or repairs of a factory, premises of provider of output service or an office relating to such factory or premises, advertisement or sales promotion, market research, storage upto the place of removal, procurement of inputs, activities relating to business, such as accounting, auditing, financing, recruitment and quality control, coaching and training, computer networking, credit rating, share registry, and security, inward transportation of inputs or capital goods and outward transportation upto the place of removal;
 
New definition: - Now, vide Budget 2011-12, the definition of input services is amended and will read as under:
 
(l) “input service” means any service, -
 
(i) used by a provider of taxable service for providing an output service; or
 
(ii) used by a manufacturer, whether directly or indirectly, in or in relation to the manufacture of final products and clearance of final products upto the place of removal,
 
and includes services used in relation to modernisation, renovation or repairs of a factory, premises of provider of output service or an office relating to such factory or premises, advertisement or sales promotion, market research, storage upto the place of removal, procurement of inputs, accounting, auditing, financing, recruitment and quality control, coaching and training, computer networking, credit rating, share registry, security, business exhibition, legal services, inward transportation of inputs or capital goods and outward transportation upto the place of removal; but excludes services,-
 
(A) specified in sub-clauses (p), (zn), (zzl), (zzm), (zzq), (zzzh) and (zzzza) of clause (105) of section 65 of the Finance Act (hereinafter referred as specified services), in so far as they are used for-
 
(a) construction of a building or a civil structure or a part thereof; or
 
(b) laying of foundation or making of structures for support of capital goods, except for the provision of one or more of the specified services; or
 
(B) specified in sub-clauses (d), (o), (zo) and (zzzzj) of clause (105) of section 65 of the Finance Act, in so far as they relate to a motor vehicle except when used for the provision of taxable services for which the credit on motor vehicle is available as capital goods; or
 
(C) such as those provided in relation to outdoor catering, beauty treatment, health services, cosmetic and plastic surgery, membership of a club, health and fitness centre, life insurance, health insurance and travel benefits extended to employees on vacation such as Leave or Home Travel Concession, when such services are used primarily for personal use or consumption of any employee;”
 
Changes in definition:-
 
Hence, there is lot of change in definition of “inputs services”. We are discussing the changes in the same and their impact in following paras:-
 
Business Expenditure:- First visible change is deletion of words “relating to business”. There was a lot of litigation on the point whether a particular service was an input service for the assessee or not. In the case of the Commissioner of Central Excise, Nagpur v/s Ultra Tech Cement Ltd [2010-TIOL-745-HC-MUM-ST] it was held that
 
Cenvat Credit – Service Tax – input service – extends to all services used in relation to the business of manufacturing the final product – the definition of “input service” is very wide and covers not only services, which are directly or indirectly used in or in relation to the business of manufacture of final products, be it prior to the manufacture of final products after the manufacture of final products. To put it differently, the definition of input service is not restricted to services used in or in relation to manufacture of final products, but extends to all services used in relation to the business of manufacturing the final product.
 
It was further held that:
 
In Relation to Business: The expression “activities in relation to business” in the definition of “input service” postulates activities which are integrally connected with the business of the assessee. If the activity is not integrally connected with the business of the manufacture of final product, the service would not qualify to be a input service under Rule 2 (1) of the 2004 Rules.
 
Thus, the outdoor catering service was held by the Hon’ble High Court to be an input service for the assessee therein as being integrally connected with the business of manufacturing cement and therefore, credit of service paid on outdoor catering services would be allowable.
 
Similarly in the case of Coca Cola India (P) Ltd v/s CCE, Pune-III {[2009] 22 STT 130 (BOM.)} it was held as under:
 
Rule 2(l) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 - Cenvat credit -Input service - Whether services of advertising and marketing procured by an assessee-manufacturer in respect of advertisements for aerated waters are covered by definition of term ‘input services’ as defined in rule 2(l) when admittedly assessee manufactures concentrates which are exclusively used for manufacture of respective aerated waters which are advertised by assessee - Held, yes -Whether, therefore, service tax paid on expenditure incurred by assessee on advertisement, sales promotion, market research, etc., will have to be allowed as input stage credit more particularly if same forms a part of price of final product of assessee on which excise duty is paid - Held, yes [Paras 38 and 44]
 
Thus, all the services which were utilised in or in relation to business expenditure of the assessee were treated as input services and cenvat credit was held to be admissible in the said cases.
 
Now, in the amended definition the words “activities relating to business, such as” have been deleted. Now the credit of services utilised in the business activities if not mentioned in the definition would not be eligible input services for availing cenvat credit facility. The definition of input service has been narrowed down. The effect of the judgment in the cases of Coca Cola India (P) Ltd and Ultra Tech Cement has been nullified. But will it has the same effect. It is due to the fact that all the services are still listed in the definition of “input services”. Further, the definition still uses the words “includes”. Thus, it is inclusive definition and is not complete list of services to be covered in input services.
 
Construction services: - Another change in the definition is that an exclusion clause has been added excluding certain services used for specified construction activities. By the addition of the exclusion clause more conflict has been created.
 
In the main part of the definition it has been provided that input services will include services used in relation to modernisation, renovation or repairs of a factory, premises of provider of output service or an office relating to such factory or premises. And cenvat credit has been allowed not only on the renovation, repairing etc. of factory or premises of output service provider but it went further to allow the same for office also.
 
But the exclusion clause excludes the commercial construction services, architect service, residential construction service and works contract services from the purview of input services. Thus, the litigation will arise as to the main part of the definition will prevail or the exclusion clause.
 
Port services: - Further, there was dispute on admissibility of service tax paid on port services and other port services used after clearance of goods from the factory but the department has never objected on service tax paid on port services used for clearance of inputs. But the cenvat is being denied on all port service, other port services and services provided at the airport. Further, it says that it will be denied to the extent it is used for construction of building or civil structure or for laying foundation or making of structure for support services. We are not able to understand as to how port services are used in construction of laying foundation.
 
Addition of legal services and business exhibition:- This is welcome step and these are included in definition of inputs. The credit will be available on the same.
 
Specific exclusions: - the definition has clearly excluded the services of outdoor catering, beauty treatment, health services, cosmetic and plastic surgery, membership of club, health and fitness, life insurance, health insurance, travel benefits. This is clearly stated that these are used for employees for personal use then the same will not be allowed. Out of above, there is lot of litigation on outdoor catering. The larger bench has allowed the cenvat credit on outdoor catering services in GTC industries. Further, the same was travelled to High Court and decision in case Ultratech Cement cited supra has come and credit was allowed. But now the department has changed the definition. The Board should have done at earlier stage only so that litigation has not taken place.  
 
Conclusion: - The board has amended the definition to reduce the litigation but exact outcome will be known in times to come. But this is true that amendment has unsettled the things once again which were already settled. 

*************

 
 
 
Department News


Query

 
PRADEEP JAIN, F.C.A.

Head Office : -

Address :
"SUGYAN", H - 29, SHASTRI NAGAR, JODHPUR (RAJ.) - 342003

Phone No. :
0291 - 2439496, 0291 - 3258496

Mobile No. :
09314722236

Fax No. :0291 - 2439496


Branch Office : -

Address:
1008, 10th FLOOR, SUKH SAGAR COMPLEX,
NEAR FORTUNE LANDMARK HOTEL, USMANPURA,
ASHRAM ROAD, AHMEDABAD-380013

Phone No. :
079-32999496, 27560043

Mobile No. :
093777659496, 09377649496

E-mail :pradeep@capradeepjain.com