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/2010-11/1040

Canteen service/facility - Whether input service under CCR, 2004
Case: Commissioner of Central Excise, Ahmedabad - I v/s Ferromatik Milacron India limited
 
Citation: 2011-TIOL-18-HC-AHM-ST 

Issue:- Whether the canteen service/ facility; provided in the factory of the assessee was an input service, in or in relation to manufacture, directly or indirectly of the final products, within the meaning of and comprehension of Rule 2 (i) of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004?
 
Whether the CENVAT credit of the Service Tax, so paid for receiving the outdoor caterer’s services by them for providing canteen services to their employees, was eligible for availment and utilization in terms of Rule 3 of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004?
 
Brief Facts:- Respondent-assessee is a manufacturer of Injection Moulding Machines and parts thereof. Canteen services were being provided by the respondent to its employees, in view of statutory requirement under Section 46 of the Factories Act. During audit, it was noticed that during the period 1st March, 2006 to 30th September, 2006, respondent had availed Cenvat credit on Service Tax in respect of canteen services. Department alleged that respondent was not entitled to the credit on the ground that canteen services cannot be treated as input service as defined under the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004. Accordingly, Show Cause Notice was issued. The Adjudicating Authority confirmed the demand of recovery of service tax and penalty was imposed alongwith interest.
 
Appeal before Commissioner (A) was dismissed. Respondent has filed appeal before the Tribunal. The Tribunal allowed the appeal. Hence, Revenue has filed this appeal before the Tribunal.  
 
Appellant’s Contentions:- Revenue submitted that the main definition of input services extended CENVAT credit of service tax paid on services which were used in or in relation to the manufacture of finished excisable goods. That the inclusive part of the definition which covers additional business activities cannot be stretched beyond what is prescribed in the main definition. Accordingly, canteen services even if they are assumed to be activities relating to the main business of manufacture, the same would not be covered under the inclusive part of the definition, because extension of such facilities would not have any direct or indirect nexus to the manufacture of goods.
 
It was accordingly submitted that the definition of the term input services as appearing in Rule 2(l) of the Rules would not bring the service in question within the scope of input service so as to be eligible for credit under Rule 3 of the Rules.
 
Reasoning of the Judgment:- The High Court found that for the purpose of carrying out its manufacturing activities, it was mandatory for the respondent to provide canteen facilities to its workers.  The High Court perused the definition of input services as given under CCR, 2004.
 
Further, the High Court held that as per the provisions of Section 46 of the Factories Act, it is mandatory for the employer to provide canteen services to the staff. Thus, provision of canteen service is a statutory requirement. Provisions of canteen service are a statutory requirement. Provisions of canteen services being indispensible, it is incumbent on a manufacture of goods, to provide the same if he desires to run his factory. In view of the definition of Input service which means any service used by the manufacturer, whether directly or indirectly, in or in relation to the manufacture of final products, the input service does not have to used directly in the manufacture of final products, it may be a service which is only indirectly used in relation to the manufacture of final products. In the circumstances, canteen services which are indispensible in relation to manufacture of the final products would certainly fall within the ambit of input service as defined under the rules.
 
It was held that moreover, Rule 3 of the Rules insofar as the same is relevant for the present purpose provides that the manufacture shall be allowed to take credit of the service tax leviable under Section 66 of the Finance Act; paid on any input service received by the manufacturer of final product on or after the 10th day of September, 2004. A plain reading of the said rule makes it clear that the said provision does not qualify the nature of input service availed by the manufacturer.
 
The High Court held that the Tribunal was justified in holding that the service tax paid on outdoor catering services by the canteen located in the respondent’s manufacturing premises has to be considered as an input service relating to business and that Cenvat credit is admissible in respect of the same. The view taken by the Tribunal being in consonance with the provisions of the Rules does not suffer from any legal infirmity so as to warrant interference.
 
Judgment:- Appeal dismissed.
 
Comment:- It is important decision which says that if the services are provided due to legal requirement then the cenvat credit is available on the same. This analogy will have far reaching effect in days to come.
 

************
 

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