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

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