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: 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