Chartered Accountant
Bookmark and Share
click here to subscribe our newsletter
 
 
Corporate News *  Missing seized records must be considered while testing ITC claim; duplicate GST demands ordered corrected: Delhi High Court. *  GST appeal can’t be rejected without addressing taxpayer’s grounds: Allahabad High Court. *  Surplus IGST credit can offset CGST, SGST shortfall: GSTAT. *  GST refund can’t be denied when cancelled airfares are returned with tax: GSTAT. *  3 Hearing notices issued within 2 minutes: Gujarat High Court flags portal flaw, seeks report. *  GSTR-9, GSTR-9C filing for FY 2025-26 enabled; pending GSTR-1 and GSTR-3B must be filed first. *  Dupattas are exempt fabrics, can’t be taxed as fibres at 4%: Madras High Court. *  Full transitional credit allowed on capital goods received after GST rollout: GSTAT denies Rs. 6.99 lakh export duty credit. *  GST return mismatch alone can’t justify fraud proceedings: GSTAT orders fresh adjudication under section 73. *  Supplier found non-existent later can’t alone justify input tax credit denial: GSTAT. *  GST interest stops once tax reaches government account, can’t run until return filing: GSTAT. *  Cancelled flat booking- GST refund can’t be denied without excluding COVID period from limitation: GSTAT. *  India notifies rules of origin for India–New Zealand FTA. *  Incomplete E-bike kits classifiable as complete vehicles, but not eligible for CKD duty concession: CESTAT. *  Same GST rate on main input and output can’t by itself bar inverted duty refund: GSTAT. *  Unjust enrichment doesn’t apply to customs refunds from assessments finalised before July 13, 2006: Gujarat High Court. *  CENVAT credit can’t be denied solely because plant And machinery are embedded in earth: Karnataka High Court. *  DFIA exports ineligible for RoDTEP benefits; customs directs repayment with applicable interest. *  Second E-Way bill alone doesn’t prove another supply: GSTAT. *  Bail denied in Rs. 1.19 crore fake GST refund case over risk of accused absconding again: Punjab and Haryana High Court. *  GST registration can be restored after revocation deadline if outstanding dues are paid: Gauhati High Court. *  Multiple GST proceedings over same suppliers: Calcutta High Court directs dept. to share findings for adjudication. *  E-Governance portal services not OIDAR, fixed deposit interest not taxable: CESTAT. *  Rs. 500 Stamp duty required on authority letters for CAs, CMA and GST practitioners in Pune GST division.  *  Rs. 1.10 crore GST refund must be paid in cash after business closure: Allahabad High Court. *  Godown rent attracts 18% GST even when used exclusively for exempt agricultural warehousing: AAR. *  GST portal launches "Multi-State Registration" facility: one master TRN for registration applications across multiple States/UTs. *  RoDTEP scheme extended till 31st December, 2026.  *  Mere disagreement with order can’t override Rs. 20 lakh appeal limit: GSTAT. *  Customs interest can’t be backdated before confiscation liability is determined; nearly 8 year period excluded: Delhi High Court.
Subject News *  GST summons: anticipatory bail maintainable without arrest order, but relief denied in evasion case: Allahabad High Court. *  GST Appeal can’t be decided without hearing taxpayer’s objections to fresh evidence: Allahabad High Court. *  GST ITC can’t be reversed merely because supplier grants discount without reducing tax liability: GSTAT. *  Mere quoting of GST provision is not a valid charge: GSTAT quashes ITC denial. *  Personal hearing mandatory before adverse GST order, even without taxpayer’s request: Rajasthan High Court. *  Parallel bail pleas without full disclosure amount to abuse of process Rs. 43.08 crore GST case sent for fresh hearing: Supreme Court. *  GST refund based on unchallenged advance ruling can’t be recovered using later circular: GSTAT. *  Payment of GST alone doesn’t end interest and penalty liability when tax and interest remain unpaid beyond 30 days of notice: GSTAT. *  GST demand over builders’ 80% procurement rule requires reasoned adjudication: GSTAT. *  Eligible ITC doesn’t automatically entitle taxpayers to compensation cess refund on domestic sales: GSTAT. *  GST confiscation order passed before reply deadline invalid: GSTAT. *  GST interest can’t be retained after tax refund on delayed export receipts: Punjab & Haryana High Court. *  GST appeal can’t be dismissed over pre-deposit shortfall without opportunity To respond: Bombay High Court. *  DGGI SCN can’t be challenged before reply and adjudication:Chhattisgarh High Court. *  GST input tax credit can’t be denied solely due to supplier’s retrospective registration cancellation: GSTAT. *  GST notice must explain fraud allegations; merely repeating section 74 Is not enough:  Himachal Pradesh High Court. *  Audit detection alone can’t justify GST fraud penalty; specific suppression must be proved: GSTAT. *  GST order uploaded only under ‘Additional Notices’ tab without separate intimation set aside: Calcutta High Court. *  Service Tax appeal can’t be rejected for missing pre-deposit proof when payment is already recorded: CESTAT. *  SGST dept. can’t hear appeal against CGST order: Calcutta High Court. *  Mere dispatch of tax order can’t prove service or make appeal time-barred: CESTAT. *  Dealer incentives can’t be taxed merely on ledger entries: CESTAT. *  DGFT orders quashed for failure to supply DRI letter relied upon in SCN: Bombay High Court. *  GST penalty u/s 122(1A) can’t apply to Pre-2021 transactions; unregistered beneficiaries also covered: Delhi High Court. *  Expired E-way bill caused by wrong PIN code can’t justify GST penalty without intent to evade tax: GSTAT. *  Used railway rails can’t be taxed as track material without proof they are fit for reuse: CESTAT. *  Earlier DGGI notice doesn’t bar separate GST demand on different issue: Delhi High Court. *  ITC dispute involves no question of law: GSTAT directs appeal to Vice-President. *  Earlier DGGI notice doesn’t bar separate GST demand On different issue: Delhi High Court. *  No E-way bill required for interstate goods movement in november 2017: GSTAT quashes detention and penalty.  

Comments

Print   |    |  Comment

PJ/Case Laws/2011-12/1155

Availability of Cenvat credit on Local Travel, Medical Insurance and Outdoor Catering services

Case:  Affinity Express India Pvt. Ltd. Vs Commissioner of C. Ex., Pune-I
 
Citation:  2011 (22) S.T.R. 177 (Tri. Mumbai)
 
Issue:- Cenvat credit on local travel, medical insurance and outdoor catering is allowed. The cenvat credit on meal coupons paid by employees is not available to employers.
 
Brief Facts:- Assessee was exporting services. They were utilizing the services of local travel, medical insurance, outdoor catering service and meal coupons. As the assessee were exporting services, the cenvat credit taken on said input services accumulated. Therefore, it filed a refund claim under Rule 5 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004.
 
The Adjudicating Authority has allowed the refund claim. In Appeals, the Commissioner (Appeals) rejected the claim for local travel and medical insurance.
 
Assessee is in appeal against the rejection of refund for Local travel and medical insurance. Revenue is disputing the allowances of the refund of input credit service claimed for the outdoor canteen/meal coupons services.
 
Assessee’s Contention:- The assessee submitted that they have taken credit on business related services in terms of Rule 2(l) of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 and are eligible for input service credit. The assessee relied upon decision of Bombay High Court in case of Ultratech Cement [2010-TIOL-745-H.C.] and also relied on the decision of Stanzen Toyotetsu India Pvt. Ltd. Vs CCE.[2009 (14) S.T.R. 316 (Tri. Bang.)] and H.E.G. Ltd. Vs. CCE, Nagpur [2010 (17) S.T.R. 178 (Tri. Del)].
 
With regard to outdoor catering and meal service, assessee relied on judgment given in GTC Industries Ltd. [2008 (12) S.T.R. 468 (Tri. L.B.)] wherein it was held that the input service credit on outdoor catering service is available to assessee in case the cost of food has been borne by employer.
 
The assessee also submitted that the denial of refund claim to them is beyond the scope of the show cause notice. It was also submitted that they have taken due credit on input services and filed returns accordingly and the same has been accepted by the department without any dispute. The appellant further submitted that prior to 1.05.2006, they were providing the service to their foreign clients under the head of Business Auxiliary Service, hence they have correctly taken the credit and are entitled for refund claim under Rule 5 of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004.  
 
Department’s Contention:- The department submitted that the services exported by the assessee have come under the service tax net with effect from 1.05.2006. In that event, any input service credit availed by them prior to 1.05.2006 is not eligible for credit.  The department also clarified that the services were not taxable which the assessee were exporting in the month of April 2006. Hence the credit of any input service accumulated in the month of April 2006, the assessee is not entitled to claim the refund of the same.
 
With regard to services of local travel and medical insurance claim the department relied on the decision of Vikram Ispat Vs. CCE [2010(19)S.T.R. 52 (Tri. Mum)]. With regard to outdoor catering service the department relied on the decision of the Bombay High Court in the case of Ultratech Cement. Finally the Department submitted that the input service credit refund by the assessee on the meal coupon service is not eligible as the same are not covered by the outdoor catering service.
 
Reasoning of Judgment:- The Tribunal found that the assessee had availed input service credit on the services availed in April, 2006. And in the impugned order, it has been clearly held that no export of service has taken place during April, 2006 hence the assessee is not entitled to take the credit of input service availed in April, 2006. It was held that as per CCR, 2004 an assessee was entitled to take credit on input service at the time of availment of service not at the time of providing the services. It was held that in view of these finding the order of Lower Authorities is totally irrelevant. Hence, the assessee is entitled to avail input service credit of services availed by them in the month of April 2006 also.
 
The Tribunal with regard to the input service credit on local travel and medical insurance, relied upon the decision of the High Court of Bombay in case ofUltratech Cement [2010-TIOL-745-H.C.] and held that it is squarely applicable wherein it has been held that any input service availed by the assessee in course of their business is entitled for input service credit. The Lower Authority has not raised any objection that these services are availed by the assessee in the course of their business. Hence the denial of input service on medical insurance and local travel is not sustainable
 
The Tribunal with regard to meal coupons, it was noted that it had been clarified that these meal coupons are given to the employees to take meal from factory canteen free of charge. As the cost of food against these meal coupons has been borne by the assessee, the Tribunal held that, the assessee is entitled to claim input service in view of judgment in case of Ultratech Cement [2010-TIOL-745-H.C.]
 
With regard to outdoor catering service, the Tribunal relied upon the High Court of Bombay in case of Ultratech Cement wherein it was held that the assessee is not entitled for input service credit for the charges recovered by them against the subsidized food from their employees. Accordingly, the credit availed by the assessee on the amount recovered by them from their employees against the canteen services is denied.
 
Decision:- Appeals of both assessee and department partly allowed. 

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

 
 

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