Chartered Accountant
Bookmark and Share
click here to subscribe our newsletter
 
 
Corporate News *  GST registration cancellation without reasons amounts to ‘Economic Death’ of business: Supreme Court. *  No GST refund if appeal before GSTAT is filed late: Gujarat High Court. *  Mere upload of GST notice on portal not valid service, appeal limitation won’t start: Punjab & Haryana High Court. *  Taxpayer can’t be penalised for missing notices hidden under ‘Additional Notices/Orders’: Calcutta High Court allows fresh adjudication. *  State tax officer can’t issue GST SCN beyond CBIC-assigned jurisdiction: Bombay High Court stays recovery proceedings. *  Earlier 7.5% Pre-Deposit must count towards mandatory 10% for Appeal: Uttarakhand high court quashes CESTAT Order. *  Third Parties can’t challenge GST Advance Rulings merely due to financial impact: Karnataka HC *  GST SCN generated using AI tool quashed: Punjab & Haryana High Court *  Bank Attachment Quashed as Madras HC Quashes GST Order Issued Against Deceased Person *  ITC Blocking Order for Failure to Record ‘Reason to Believe’ U/R 86A Quashed: Allahabad High Court *  Govt Extends GSTAT Appeal Filing Deadline From 30 June to July 31, 2026 *  GST Demand on RWA Stayed: Allahabad High Court Questions Taxability of Electricity Distribution to Flat Owners *  CBIC Clarifies Jurisdiction After GST Registration Transfer: Earlier Proceedings Remain Valid, New Officer to Continue Action *  GST authorities’ certification not mandatory for reimbursement, but tax payment must be proven: Karnataka HC *  Contractor can’t seek gst reimbursement through writ when contract has arbitration clause: Karnataka HC *  Unsigned Order Is No Order in Law: AP HC Quashes GST Assessment Order for Want of Officer’s Signature *  Customs Can’t Levy Rs. 1.36 Crore Cost Recovery Charges Without Proof of Full-Day Officer Deployment: CESTAT  *  12% IGST Payable On Imported Dialysis Machine Parts: CESTAT *  Bombay High Court Admits Challenge to GST Limitation Extension Notifications; Grants Protection Against Coercive Recovery *  Criminal Case Can’t Run Parallel to GST Proceedings on Same Facts: Allahabad High Court *  Allahabad High Court Stays GST Detention Order; Directs Release of Vehicle and Goods on Deposit of Rs. 1.44 Lakh *  Service Tax Can’t Be Levied on Loss-Making Contracts: Gujarat High Court *  GSTN Mandates Ship-to GSTIN in e-Invoice and e-Way Bill APIs; Introduces Voluntary e-Way Bill Closure Facility from August 1, 2026 *  GST Appeal Can’t Be Rejected as Time-Barred When Taxpayer Was Pursuing Rectification Remedy: Telangana High Court *  Absence of E-Way Bill and Transport Documents Justifies Customs Seizure U/s 110: Gauhati HC *  Madras High Court Upholds GST Late Fee and Penalty for Non-Filing of Annual Return, Dismisses Challenge  *  GST Records, Purchase Documents Sufficient to Discharge Burden Under Customs Act: CESTAT Orders Release of 3.65 Kg Gold  *  No Sugar Cess Payable on Sugar Exported Out of India: CESTAT *  Road Construction Services Exempt and SCN Time-Barred: CESTAT Quashes Service Tax Demand Based Solely on Form 26AS  *  ITC Freeze Upheld After GST Dept Find Suppliers Were Allegedly Fake Bill-Trading Entities: Madras HC 
Subject News *  Input service benefits can’t be denied: CESTAT allows export refund despite MMTC acting as Canalising agency. *  No service tax demand without proof of service of SCN: CESTAT. *  Service tax demand quashed as dept. fails to prove service of SCN: CESTAT *  GST : Mere allegation of inadequate consideration of reply not enough to invoke writ jurisdiction: Delhi High Court *  Onerous conditions imposed for provisional release of seized imported goods shouldn’t amount to virtual denial of relief: CESTAT. *  GST SCN without alleging fraud cannot invoke sec. 74: Karnataka High Court quashes adjudication order. *  Extended Limitation Can’t Be Invoked Merely on Form 26AS Data: CESTAT *  Revenue-Sharing with Restaurants Not Taxable as Business Support Service: CESTAT *  R. 6(3) Option Can’t Be Forced on Taxpayer; CESTAT Quashes Rs. 12.36 Crore CENVAT Credit Demand *  Excise Duty | Power Consumption Alone Can’t Prove Clandestine Manufacture: Karnataka High Court *  Madras High Court Examines DGGI’s Authority to Issue GST Penalty Orders Under Section 122, Adds DGGI as Party *  Proceedings under omitted r. 96(10) can’t survive without saving clause: andhra pradesh high court quashes gst refund recovery *  Excise duty power consumption alone can’t prove clandestine manufacture: karnataka high court *  Madras high court rules GST show cause notices must disclose grounds for invoking extended limitation *  Court Can’t Direct Extension GST Return Deadlines or Waive Interest and Penalties: Karnataka High Court *  GST Notifications Can’t Go Beyond GST Council Recommendations: Madras High Court Quashes SCN on Branded Pulses *  Appeal Can’t Be Dismissed for Delay When Dept’s Own Order Mis-states Limitation Period: CESTAT *  No Evidence of KYC or Due Diligence Breach By Customs Broker: CESTAT Quashes Licence Revocation in Export Overvaluation Case *  Glucometers Are Chemical Analysis Instruments Classifiable Under Tariff Heading 9027: CESTAT *  Validity of Post-GST Service Tax Proceedings Upheld: Gujarat High Court Dismisses Challenge to S. 73 SCN *  Rectified GST Refund Applications Can’t Be Rejected as Time-Barred If Original Refund Claim Was Filed Within Limitation: Gujarat HC *  Service Tax Refund Can’t Be Denied as Time-Barred When Levy Itself Is Unconstitutional: Gujarat High Court *  Same Officer Can’t Act As Auditor & Adjudicator: Karnataka High Court *  Karnataka High Court Condones 324-Day Delay, Revives Customs Appeal in Jewellery Pilferage Case  *  Madras High Court Quashes GST Assessment Order Passed Ex Parte Despite Prior ITC Reversal; Lifts Bank Attachment *  Tobacco Process Doesn’t Amount to Manufacturing: Madras High Court Quashes Rs. 1.32 Crore Compensation Cess Demand  *  Recovery Notice Unsustainable After Voluntary Reversal of Unutilised Credit: CESTAT  *  GST | ‘System Generated’ SCN Without Officer Details Invalid: Allahabad HC  *  Electronic Records Without Statutory Certification Requirements Can’t Justify Undervaluation Allegations: CESTAT *  Madras High Court Stays GST Order, Finds Prima Facie Merit in Plea Against S. 74 Proceedings Based on S. 73 Intimation  

Comments

Print   |    |  Comment

PJ/CASE LAW/2015-16/2941

Cenvat Credit eligibility for catering, photography and mandap keeper services.

Case:- BANSAL CLASSES VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF C. EX. & S.T., JAIPUR-I
 
Citation:- 2015 (39) S.T.R. 967 (Raj.)
 
Brief facts:- This appeal has been filed against the final Order-in-Appeal dated 13-9-2013 passed by Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal. The assessee is holding service tax registration providing commercial training and coaching services to the students and is not entitled to confer any degree on them.
Assessee has availed the Cenvat credit in respect to Service tax paid on various input services. Scrutiny of the records of appellant revealed that it had wrongly availed Cenvat credit amounting to Rs. 1,04,035/- during 1-8-2005 to 30-9-2008 on certain ineligible input services catering, photography, tent (Mandap keeper), maintenance & repairs (motor vehicles), rent for hiring examination hall and travelling expenses.

Appellant’s contention:-The Appellant contended that he is essentially providing commercial training and coaching services to the students. It is not permitted to confer educational degrees on the students. The services of catering, photography and tents are used by the appellant to encourage the successful students in coaching.
Appellant states that the action taken by the respondent was beyond the period of limitation.

Respondent’s contention:- The respondent contended that -
(i)         Its service was covered under the commercial training and coaching services to the students and is not entitled to confer any degree on them.
(ii)        The Revenue was of the view that Cenvat credit was not admissible to the appellant as it did not cover under the definition of input services as provided in Rule 2(1) of Cenvat Credit Rules because these services are not used in or in relation to providing output services. The Department, therefore, issued show cause notice to the appellant and demanded Service tax along with interest with proposed penalty.
(iii)       Show cause notice was decided against the appellant and the order-in-original was challenged before the Commissioner (Appeals) who vide order dated 21-9-2012 dismissed the same after modifying the penalty amount. Undeterred, the appellant filed appeal before the Appellate Tribunal which has been partly allowed by the impugned order.
(iv)       The department contended that the above services are used only after commercial training or coaching is over. The celebrations are organized by the appellant during the academic sessions to encourage the existing students and motivate new students. In these celebrations, catering, photography and tents are used by the appellant and these celebrations are held only when students pass commercial training or coaching classes. The appellant is paying Service tax under the output service of commercial training or coaching. Once the students pass their coaching classes, the activities of catering, photography and tent services cannot be said to have been used to provide output service.

Reasoning of judgment:-The judgment was quite reasonable on the ground that Cenvat credit of Mandap, photography, catering cannot be availed since these input services have been used for encouraging the existing students and motivating new students.  Since once the students passed the coaching classes, the activities of catering, photography and tent services cannot be said to have been used to provide output service. Similarly, the appellant maintain and repair its motor vehicle during the course of the business and there is no material to show that repair & maintenance have any connection with commercial training or coaching. The travelling expenses incurred by the appellant for the business tours cannot be related to provision for commercial training or coaching and according the tribunal is correct in denying the said expenses to avail Cenvat credit.
The appellant counsel contention that the action taken by the respondent was beyond the period of limitation was not argued before the appellant tribunal.
In view of the above findings, the appeal was found devoid of any merits and was dismissed.
 
Decision:-Appeal dismissed.
 
Comment:- The essence of the case is that since the input services of catering, photography, mandap keeper services have been availed by the coaching centre for encouraging the meritorious students, it cannot be said that the said input services are used for providing the output service of commercial, coaching or training. Therefore, the cenvat credit for the said input services was denied. Moreover, as the contention of limitation was not argued before the tribunal, the same was not considered by the High Court.   
 
Prepared by:- Manish Satyani

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