Chartered Accountant
Bookmark and Share
click here to subscribe our newsletter
 
 
Corporate News *  Dept. Can’t Classify Product as Zarda Scented Tobacco After Repeatedly Approving It As Chewing Tobacco: CESTAT *  Mere Uploading Of GST Order On Portal Is Not “Valid” Service: Tripura HC *  CGST Can Proceed Even If SGST Closed Similar Case Earlier: Delhi HC *  SC upholds 28% GST on online gaming with retrospective effect. *  West Bengal Govt cuts E-way Bill Threshold limit to Rs. 50,000 for intra-state goods movement. *  Criminal Prosecution Under Central Excise Act Can’t Continue After CESTAT Sets Aside Duty Demand on Merits: Punjab & Haryana High Court. *  Madras High Court Quashes GST Assessment Orders for Denial of Personal Hearing; Remands Matter Subject to 10% Deposit *  Ex Parte GST Order: Madras High Court Directs Immediate Removal of Bank/ITC Attachment Upon 25% Deposit *  J.K. Cement Receives GST Demand Order of Rs 8,02,113/- from Ahmedabad Tax Authority *  Delhi Police EOW Busts Alleged Rs. 128 Crore GST Fake Invoice Network. *  REPLY TO SCN CAN’T BE TREATED AS “EMPTY FORMALITY”: ORISSA HIGH COURT QUASHES GST DEMAND OF RS. 57.30 LAKH *  Challenge to CGST Provisions restricting ITC to Bonafide Purchasers : Allahabad HC issues notice *  CBIC Notifies Revised Customs Tariff Values for Edible Oils, Gold, Silver, Brass Scrap and Areca Nuts *  Delhi HC Orders Removal of GST Attachment After Statutory 1 Year Period Expired *  GSTAT Extends Relaxed Appeal Filing Guidelines till December 31, 2026 *  AO fails to Provide Import - Export Data from DGFT to Taxpayer for Reconciliation *  Gold, Silver Imports To Get Costlier As Govt Raises Customs Duty To 10%  *  GSTAT Enables Pre-Payment Access to Document Upload and Checklist for GST Appeal Filing *  GST Portal Restrictions Can’t Override Statute: Gujarat HC Allows Cross-State Transfer Of CGST ITC After Amalgamation *  Centre Revises HS Codes for Large Diameter Steel Pipes Used in Oil & Gas Pipelines *  Customs Duty Liability Arises On Warehouse Clearance Date: Supreme Court *  Government lifts export ban on de-oiled rice bran *  CESTAT Grants 12% Interest on Pre-Deposit for Investigation from Date of Deposit till Refund and Denies Interest on Interest. *  Government Overhauls GST Classification Framework for Non-Alcoholic Beverages; Fruit Juice Drinks, Milk-Based Beverages and Caffeinated Drinks to Attract Revised 5% and 40% GST Rates from May 1, 2026 *  India’s gross GST collections hit a record Rs 2.42 lakh crore in April, up 8.7% *  Customs clearance stalled, revenue hit over MRP dispute *  Shipping Corporation explores Middle East routes as Hormuz tensions disrupt cargo movement *  India, Kenya signs MoU for exchange of pre-arrival customs information *  No demand of Taxes under Reverse Charge if Tax Already Discharged by Service Provider under forward charge *  The India-New Zealand Free Trade Agreement, signed "once-in-a-generation" deal that eliminates tariffs on 100% of Indian exports to New Zealand
Subject News *  Consignment Sales Can’t Be Reclassified as Inter-State Sales Based on Pre-Agreement Evidence: CESTAT *  Exporter Can’t Be Denied Advance Authorization Benefit Due To ICEGATE Technical Glitch: Delhi High Court *  No GST Demand For Mere Wrong Set-Off Of IGST Credit Under CGST And SGST Heads: Kerala HC. *  Cenvat Credit Can’t Be Denied on Input Services Having Nexus With Manufacturing Activities: CESTAT *  Pending Proceedings Can’t Survive Without Saving Clause: Calcutta High Court Quashes GST Demand of Rs. 6.28 Crore After Omission of Rule 96(10) *  Madras HC Quashes GST Demands on TASMAC (Tamil Nadu State Marketing Corporation) Bar Licence Fee *  GST Proceedings Cannot Survive Omitted Rule Without Saving Clause: Calcutta HC *  Provisional Release Can’t Be Denied Solely On Dept. Suspicion Of Misclassification And Undervaluation Of Imported Goods: CESTAT *  Businesses Should Not Be Kept Outside GST Regime Without Due Process: Gauhati High Court *  Punjab & Haryana HC Directs Reconsideration of Contractors’ Claim for Additional GST Payment After Tax Rate Hike From 12% to 18% *  S. 108 Statements Can’t Be Sole Basis Without Following Section 138B Procedure: CESTAT *  Bombay High Court Frames Key Questions on Mandatory Distribution of ITC U/s 20 CGST Act *  Filing of Annexure-B for Refund Applications involving Accumulated ITC using the offline utility in GST portal: GSTN *  No Service Tax on Parent Company’s Un-Invoiced Cost Allocations Without Actual Service or Consideration: CESTAT  *  Calcutta High Court Upholds GST Classification of Polypropylene Leno Bags as Plastic Products *  DRC-01 Summary Can’t Replace Mandatory SCN: Gauhati High Court *  GSTAT Issues Major Bench Allocation Framework; All Appeals to First Go Before Division Bench *  ITC Blocking Without Reasoned Order Violates Rule 86A; Punjab & Haryana HC Directs Release of Credit *  Allahabad HC Refuses Bail to CGST Superintendent In Rs. 70 Lakh Bribery Case *  S.130 Can’t Be Invoked Without Prior Tax Determination U/s 73/74: Allahabad High Court Quashes GST Confiscation Proceedings *  SC grants Bail to Rs 54cr GST case  *  Karnataka HC Sets Aside Duplicate GST Orders, Orders Fresh Hearing on GSTIN Cancellation *  DRC-01 Summary Can’t Replace Mandatory SCN: Gauhati High Court *  Transfer Of Unutilized ITC After Amalgamation - Supreme Court Issues Notice *  PUNJAB & HARYANA HC QUASHES GST CANCELLATION NOTICE FOR FAILURE TO PROVIDE CBIC ENQUIRY REPORT *  LICENSE FEE, TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE CHARGES NOT INCLUDIBLE IN CUSTOMS VALUE UNLESS THEY ARE A CONDITION OF SALE: CESTAT *  DELHI HC ORDERS REMOVAL OF GST ATTACHMENT AFTER STATUTORY 1 YEAR PERIOD EXPIRED *  CUSTOMS BROKER CAN’T BE FAULTED JUST BECAUSE EXPORTER’S GST REGISTRATION WAS PREVIOUSLY CANCELLED: CESTAT   *  Supreme Court Dismisses Review Plea Against Delhi HC Ruling Holding Real Operator Behind Fake GST Firms Liable As ‘Taxable Person  *  GST Appeal Can’t Be Rejected Merely Because DRC-07 Was Not Uploaded On Portal: Bombay High Court  

Comments

Publish Date: 31 May, 2008
Print   |    |  Comment

Exempted Services - Rule 6 of the Cenvat Credit Rules

 

Exempted Service
Rule 6 of the Cenvat Credit Rules
 
 
INTRODUCTION:-
 
Rule 6 of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 provides for the “Obligation of manufacturer of dutiable and exempted goods”. The said section confers the manner and provisions governing the availment of CENVAT Credit in case of manufacturing of dutiable and exempted goods or services. The Budget 2008 has introduced a very significant change in the Rule 6 ibid.
 
The basis of the Rule 6 is to disallow the benefit of Cenvat Credit to such extent as is in relation to exempted output services, being provided by a service provider providing both exempted as well as taxable service. Hence a provider of output service who is exclusively providing exempted service would not fall under the purview of Rule 6.
 
The amended Rule 6 ibid provides for three options to the assessee for determination of such extent of Cenvat Credit as is disallowed under the said Rule. Henceforth, a service provider is having the following option,
 
·        Maintaining separate accounts ‘for receipt, consumption and inventory of input and input service meant for providing output service’; and can take Cenvat credit only on that quantity of input or input service which is intended for use in providing taxable output service, orEither to
 
·        In any other cases
 
1.         Pay an amount equal to ‘eight percent of value of the exempted services’; or
2.         Pay an amount equivalent to the Cenvat credit attributable to inputs and input services used for provision of exempted services subject to the conditions and procedure specified in sub-rule (3A) of Rule 6.
 
 
THE DISPUTE:-
 
The dispute arises in the case of the output service provider who is providing both taxable services and exempted services and cannot maintain separate account of the inputs and input services used for providing the said services.
 
For this situation, the assessee is left with either of two options i.e. either to pay proportionate Cenvat Credit attributable the exempted output services or secondly, pay an amount equal to 8% of value of exempted output services.
 
In case the assessee opts for proportionate reversal of Cenvat Credit then the formula given in sub-rule 3A of Rule 6 is applicable thereto. Such formula as stated therein is in itself very complicated and practically unworkable (as already being elucidated by a number of authors).
 
Hence the assessee is left with the only option to pay an amount equivalent to 8% of the value of exempted services. The varied provisions and complicacies involved while availing such an option are discussed herein this article.
 
Old Provisions: -
 
Sub Rule 3 of Rule 6 ibid provided for the conditions applicable on the provider of Output services not maintaining separate accounts relating to both exempted as well as taxable input services.
 
The Rule provided that the service provider who was providing both exempted service and taxable service could pay Service Tax to the extent of 20% of total service tax payable from Cenvat credit and the rest 80% from the account current i.e. in cash.
 
Hence in for instance if the total service tax payable by the assessee amounts to Rs. 100 then the assessee will have to pay the tax to the extent of Rs. 20 (i.e. 20% of total service tax payable) and the residue herein Rs. 80 from account current i.e. in cash.
 
New Provision: -
 
Now the circumstances have changed. The Budget 2008 has brought an amendment in the aforementioned Rule 6 ibid. The amended Rule provides for the new provisions as under: -
 
1.   maintain separate accounts ‘for receipt, consumption and inventory of input and input service meant for providing output service’ and then take Cenvat credit on the quantity of input or input service which are used in providing taxable service. The first option is to
 
(Hence the first option has been kept as it is for the assessee with no change thereto.)
 
2.    Else in case the “Service Provider” does not maintains separate accounts for both taxable and exempted services then he is provided with the following two options, either to
 
a.    Pay 8% of the value of the exempted services; or
 
b.    Calculate proportionate credit attributable to the exempted services rendered by him and reverse the same.
 
(Herein the impact of amendment emerges.)
In case the assessee opts for second option as stated above then he is required to pay an amount equivalent to 8% of the value of the exempted services. To correctly interpret this Rule one has to see what is the meaning of the term “Exempted Service”.
 
Clause (e) of Rule 2 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 defines the term “Exempted Services” as under:-
 
“exempted services” means taxable services which are exempt from the whole of the service tax leviable thereon, and includes services on which no service tax is leviable under section 66 of the Finance Act;
 
The definition construe that “Exempted services” covers two types of services:-
 
(i)                        The services which have been expressly exempted and
 
(ii)                     The services which have not been specified under Section 66 of the Finance Act, 1994.
 
Henceforth interpretation of Rule 6 read with Rule 2(e) conveys that the assessee opting to pay an amount @ 8% of the value of exempted services, shall also include the value of the services not taxable while such computation. This result in a heavy duty loss to assessee.
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
For instance if we take the example hotel industry which is providing the services of dry cleaning, Internet, Health and fitness centre etc. which are taxable and on the other hand it also provides exempted room rent service which is his main and basically provided service. The hotelier is earning maximum revenue from the hotel service and moderate revenue by providing the additional services of dry cleaning, Internet, Health and fitness centre etc. which are taxable. Then, if he has availed Cenvat credit of inputs and input services used for providing both exempted and taxable services, and opts to reverses the Cenvat credit at the rate of 8% of the value of exempted service provided as per Rule 6, then is likely to pay a huge amount which may be much higher than the amount of Cenvat credit used by him.
 
 
Conclusion:-
 
In nut shell it can be said that out of the three options available to the assessee under Rule 6 none of them is beneficial to the assessee. As in case the assessee opts for proportionate reversal then complicated formula to compute the value of reversal is too confusing and problematic. On the other hand the assessee can not opt the option to maintain separate inventory of inputs and input services as it is impracticable and not feasible. Like for instance in case of telephone bills it is not possible for the assessee to keep separate record as to which call was made to provide taxable service and which call was made to provide an exempted service.
 
At the end the assessee is left with the option to reverse the Cenvat credit at the rate of 8% but this is also not feasible as the assessee in such a case will have to reverse an amount equal to 8% of aggregate of exempted as well as not taxable services. Ultimately resulting in greater amount of duty reversal as against the one availed.
 
As a final point the best option available to such a service provider is to forego the Cenvat credit availed by him. He can save his time and avoid lot of complications as well as legal hassles.
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