Chartered Accountant
Bookmark and Share
click here to subscribe our newsletter
 
 
Corporate News *  The GSTN has issued an Advisory dated 21.04.2026 about the introduction of an Offline Tool for the Invoice Management System (IMS)  *  CBIC extends due dates for filing of FORM GSTR 3B  for the month of April 2026 *  Interest cannot be imposed in adjudication order, if not demanded/quantified in show cause notice : Allahabad HC *  Wheelchairs with toileting facility eligible for exemption: CESTAT affirms customs duty exemption to importer *  Industries urge GST council to allow inverted duty refunds on input services *  Tamil Nadu GST dept introduced virtual hearing facility for GST appeals under under section 107 of the TNGST act: detailed guidelines  *  CIC urges authorities to implement GST evasion complaint tracking system *  Even if the assessee opts "NO" for personal hearing in form DRC-06 ,The mandatory requirement under section 75(4) to grant opportunity of hearing cannot be waived:Gujarat High Court  *  Glufosinate imports curbs imposed by govt *  Government extends Re-import period for exported cut & polished diamonds *  CIC flags lack of tracking system for tax evasion complaints,urges GST authorities to improve transparency *  No Custodial Interrogation needed in GST fraud case based on documentary evidence already in Department's Possession : Chattisgarh HC *  Orders under section cannot be sustained if passed without considering the taxpayer's objections and without granting a personal hearing:Gujarat High Court *  Mere cancellation of supplier's registration cannot,by itself,justify denial of ITC or cancellation of the recipient's registration:Bombay High Court *  High Court sets aside GST notice citing factual errors and natural justice violations *  Provisional Bank Attachment under Section. 110 of Customs Act Unsustainable Beyond Statutory period without Extension order: Bombay HC orders to defreeze accounts *  Post Clearance MRP Alteration by Distributor Does not attract Differential Customs Duty: CESTAT *  DGFT Expands scope of 'Screws' classification under RoDTEP Scheme  *  E-way bills surze to all time high of 140.6 million in March *  GST Exemption Allowed on Pure Labour Services for Standalone Houses: AAR  *  GST Payable Only on Margin in Second-Hand Car Sales, Subject to Strict Conditions and No ITC Claim: AAR *  DGFT rolls out procedure for allocation of calcined coke *  GST portal update : Pre-deposit amount now editable in Appeals *  J&K HC declared TMT scrap a 'Specified Good' eligibile for GST refunds under Support Scheme  *  Pigmy agents are employees of banks; no GST can be levied on commission  paid to them : Karnataka HC *  DGFT Revises HS Code Description for Screws Under RoDTEP *  GST Registration Cancellation Invalid Without Proper Service of Notice: Allahabad High Court. *  Bengaluru CGST | GST Backlog Appeals Deadline Fixed at June 30, 2026 *  No Time Bar on Refund of Service Tax for Services Not Rendered: CESTAT  Remands Indiabulls Case for Unjust Enrichment Check. *  Supreme Court Holds Renewable Energy Incentive Must Benefit Generators, Not Be Adjusted in Tariff
Subject News *   Delhi HC Quashes Order, Says Reminder Cannot Validate Improperly Served GST SCN *  KARNATAKA HIGH COURT REMANDS GST SHORTFALL MATTER DUE TO ABSENCE OF PERSONAL HEARING   *  CESTAT cancels confiscation and penalties on imported computer cabinet cases: Custom duty restricted to 111 surplus units *  Deposit of tax during search or investigation cannot be treated as 'Voluntary Payment' : Bombay High Court *  Section 76 of the CGST cannot be invoked where the tax has already been duly deposited, even if through another registration of the same entity: Madras High Court *  Sec 74 allows use of material regardless of source; illegality or flaws in section 67 search do not vitiate valid adjudication: HC *  Inter-State transfer of ITC on Amalgamation permissible as given under section 18(3) read with rule 41 of the CGST rules, 2017: Gujarat High Court *  HC: No GST on commisson paid to Pigmy Agents *  IGST refund denial on illegible bill of lading invalid absent chance to furnish docs; merit reconsideration in appeals directed: HC *  ITC is not admissible on GST paid on leasehold rights of land used fpr setting up an air seperation plant: AAAR,Tamil Nadu *  GST: No penalty under Section 74 after voluntary ITC reversal due to non-existent supplier : High Court *  TN AAAR denies GST ITC on Land Lease under Sec. 17(5)(d) for setting up plant and machinery *  GST proceedings quashed as notices sent to old address, despite updated address in registration *  Importer Can’t Be Penalised for Alleged IGCR Procedural Lapses Without Evidence of Departmental Error: CESTAT *  Structured Healthcare Training Not ‘Charitable Activity’, 18% GST Payable: AAR  *  CESTAT As The Appellate Authority For Central Sales Tax Disputes: A Paradigm Shift Under Finance Act, 2023 *   Rs. 25K Cost Imposed On SGST Joint Commissioner for Attaching Bank  Accounts Without Forming Mandatory “Opinion”: Bombay HC *   Ex-Parte GST Order Without Hearing Violates Natural Justice: Karnataka  High Court Quashes Adjudication and Bank Attachment.  *   Retrospective GST Cancellation Can’t Invalidate Genuine Transactions:  Jaipur Commissioner (Appeals) Quashes Rs. 95,670 ITC Demand. *   GST Pre-Deposit Non-Compliance: Allahabad High Court Allows Appeal  Subject to Rs. 30 Lakh Balance Deposit, Recognises Offline Filing. *  Documentary Nature of Evidence: Allahabad High Court Grants Bail in Rs. 32.66 Crore Fake ITC Fraud Case *  Supreme Court Flags Systemic Bias in Army’s Permanent Commission Process for Women Officers *  Re-Determination of Land Compensation Can Be Based on Appellate Court Awards, Clarifies Scope of S. 28-A: Supreme Court. *  Supreme Court Imposes Rs. 5 Lakh Costs On Rent Authority Officer For Acting Beyond Jurisdiction. *  DGGI Meerut | Court Denies Bail to Accused in Claiming Fake ITC And Export Refunds *  Denial of GST Rate Revision Benefit to Contractor Violates Article 14: Rajasthan HC *  GST Registration Cancellation for Non-Filing of Returns: Gauhati High Court Directs Restoration on Compliance. *   Supreme Court Quashes FEMA Adjudication Orders, Revives Proceedings at  Show Cause Stage. *   Higher Rank, Harsher Punishment Justified: Supreme Court Restores Dismissal  of Bank Manager in Misappropriation Case. *   Limitation for Export Refund to Be Counted from Foreign Exchange Realisation,  Not From Export Invoices Issuance: CESTAT  

Comments

Publish Date: 03 Mar, 2016
Print   |    |  Comment

INPUT SERVICE DISTRIBUTOR –CONCEPT SIMPLIFIED & SCOPE WIDENED

INPUT SERVICE DISTRIBUTOR –CONCEPT SIMPLIFIED & SCOPE WIDENED

An article by
                                                            CA Pradeep Jain
CA Preeti Parihar
CA Vaibhav Bothra

 
Introduction:-
 
Budget 2016 has been introduced and it has bought some major changes in the Cenvat credit scheme by amending the Cenvat Credit rules, 2004. One such change has been introduced in the rule 7 which relates to the input service distributer. With a view to improve credit flows between different manufacturing / service locations, Rule 7 dealing with distribution of credit on input services by an Input Service Distributor is being completely rewritten by way of substitution of the existing Rule 7 of the CCR. Also, a new rule 7B has been inserted providing the distribution of credit by warehouse. This article is an insight on the amendments so made w.e.f. 1.4.2016.
 
Existing rule 7 of CCR:-
 
The existing language of rule 7 of CCR reads as follows:
"7. Manner of distribution of credit by input service distributor. – The input service distributor may distribute the CENVAT credit in respect of the service tax paid on the input service to its manufacturing units or units providing output service, subject to the following conditions, namely:-
++ The credit distributed against a document referred to in rule 9 does not exceed the amount of service tax paid thereon;
++ Credit of service tax attributable to service used by one or more units exclusively engaged in manufacture of exempted goods or providing of exempted services shall not be distributed;
++   Credit of service tax attributable to service used wholly by a unit shall be distributed only to that unit; and
++ Credit of service tax attributable to service used in more than one unit shall be distributed pro-rata on the basis of the turnover of such units during the relevant period  to the total turnover of all its units which are operational in the current year, during the said relevant period.
Explanation 1. - For the purposes of this rule, “unit” includes the premises of a provider of output service and the premises of a manufacturer including the factory, whether registered or otherwise.
Explanation 2. - For the purposes of this rule, the total turnover shall be determined in the same manner as determined under rule 5.”
Explanation 3. – for the purpose of this rule, the ‘relevant period’ shall be-
(a)If the assessee has turnover in the ‘financial year’ preceding to the year during which credit is to be distributed for month or quarter, as the case may be, the said financial year; or
(b)If the assessee does not have turnover for some or all the units in the preceding financial year, the last quarter for which details of turnover of all the units are available, previous to the month of quarter for which credit is to be distributed.
The computation of “total turnover” is laid down in the new rule 5 which too has been substituted by the captioned notification 18/2012-CE(NT) and the same is defined thus –
(E) “Total Turnover” means sum total of the value of –
(a) All excisable goods cleared during the relevant period including exempted goods, dutiable goods and excisable goods exported;
(b) Export turnover of services determined in terms of clause (D) of sub-rule (1) above and the value of all other services, during the relevant period; and
(c)  All inputs removed as such under sub-rule (5) of rule 3 against an invoice, during the period for which the claim is filed.”
This rule is applicable as on the date and will continue to be applicable till 31.3.2016.
 
Amended rule 7 as applicable from 1.4.2016:-
The new rule 7 as amended by the notification no. 13/2016-CE(NT) dated 01/03/2016 which is applicable w.e.f. 1.4.2016 is as follows:
―7. Manner of distribution of credit by input service distributor.-The input service distributor shall distribute the CENVAT credit in respect of the service tax paid on the input service to its manufacturing units or unit providing output service or an outsourced manufacturing units, as defined in Explanation 4, subject to the following conditions, namely :—
(a) the credit distributed against a document referred to in rule 9 does not exceed the amount of service tax paid thereon;
(b) the credit of service tax attributable as input service to a particular unit shall be distributed only to that unit;
(c) the credit of service tax attributable as input service to more than one unit but not to all the units shall be distributed only amongst such units to which the input service is attributable and such distribution shall be pro rata on the basis of the turnover of such units, during the relevant period, to the total turnover of all such units to which such input service is attributable and which are operational in the current year, during the said relevant period;
(d) the credit of service tax attributable as input service to all the units shall be distributed to all the units pro rata on the basis of the turnover of such units during the relevant period to the total turnover of all the units, which are operational in the current year, during the said relevant period;
(e) outsourced manufacturing unit shall maintain separate account for input service credit received from each of the input service distributors and shall use it only for payment of duty on goods manufactured for the input service distributor concerned;
(f) credit of service tax paid on input services, available with the input service distributor, as on the 31st of March, 2016, shall not be transferred to any outsourced manufacturing unit and such credit shall be distributed amongst the units excluding the outsourced manufacturing units.
Explanation.-The provision of this clause shall, mutatis-mutandis, apply to any outsourced manufacturer commencing production of goods on or after the 1st of April, 2016;
(g) provisions of rule 6 shall apply to the units manufacturing goods or provider of output service and shall not apply to the input service distributor.
Explanation 1.- For the purposes of this rule, ―unitincludes thepremises of a provider of output service or the premises of a manufacturer including the factory, whether registered or otherwise or the premises of an outsourced manufacturing unit.
Explanation 2.–For the purposes of this rule, the total turnover shall be determined in the same manner as determined under rule 5:
Provided that the turnover of an outsourced manufacturing unit shall be the turnover of goods manufactured by such outsourced manufacturing unit for the input service distributor.
Explanation 3.– For the purposes of this rule, the relevant period‘ shall be, -
(a) if the assessee has turnover in the financial year‘ preceding to the year during which credit is to be distributed for month or quarter, as the case maybe, the said financial year; or;
(b) if the assessee does not have turn over for some or all the units in the preceding financial year, the last quarter for which details of turnover of all the units are available, previous to the month or quarter for which credit is to be distributed.
Explanation 4.– For the purposes of this rule, ―outsourced manufacturing unitmeans a job-worker who is liable to pay duty onthe value determined under rule 10A of the Central Excise Valuation (Determination of Price of Excisable Goods) Rules, 2000 on the goods manufactured for the input service distributor or a manufacturer who manufactures goods, for the input service distributor under a contract, bearing the brand name of such input service distributor and is liable to pay duty on the value determined under section 4A of the Excise Act.
 
Analysis of amendment:-
 
The new rule 7 is analyzed as follows:-
 
·        The main amendment brought by the new rule is allowing the distribution of credit by Input Service Distributor to outsourced manufacturing units. It is interesting to note that The Hon’ble Tribunal in the case of Sunbell Alloys Co. Of India Ltd. vs. CCE, BELAPUR [2014 (34) STR 597 (Tri. - Mumbai)] denied the availment of CENVAT Credit by a jobber against theISD invoice issued by the principal manufacturer. Theamendment has the effect of overcoming the impact of thesaid decision. The amendment is a forward step in extendingthe benefit to job-workers/manufacturer and ensuring thefree flow of credits.
 
·        The new rule also clarifies that the provisions of Rule 6 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 relating to reversal of credit in respect of inputs and input services used in manufacture of exempted goods or for provision of exempted services, shall not apply to the Input service distributor.  Earlier, there prevailed doubts as to the inter-play between the operation of Rule 6 and Rule 7. It was not clear whether the amounts are to be distributed firstly as per Rule 7 and then, the CENVAT Credit entitlement under Rule 6 is to be determined by the recipient unit to whom the credit has been distributed. The amendment seeks to dispel the confusion by unambiguously stating that Rule 6 is not to be applied by an ISD while distributing the credit. It is the unit to whom the credit has been distributed, is to apply Rule 6 upon receiving the distributed credit.
 
·        The existing language of rule 7 indicates that if the Cenvat was attributable to more than one units, then the Cenvat is to be distributed in all the units of the manufacturer irrespective of the fact that the Cenvat is attributable to all the units or not. This anomaly is rectified by new rule which specifically states that the credit will be distributed only in those units in which that service is actually utilized.
 
While ending:-
 
The amendment made in rule 7 seeks to clarify some anomalies prevailing in the existing language of the rule. Further, the provision inserted in respect of outsourced manufacturing units is a welcome step and is outcome of several judgments. Also, the newly inserted rule 7B also extends the facility of free flow of credit and will reduce the litigation. Thus, overview of the amendment makes it clear that this whole exercise has been done to reduce the litigation and may this intention of law makers fulfilled and taken positively by the department.
 

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