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/2012-13-1549

Cenvat credit of service tax is also eligible oninput services which will be used indirectly in relation to the output service.

Case:- M/s Doshion Ltd. Vs. C.C.E., Ahmedabad

Citation:- 2013 (30) S.T.R. 240 (Tri.- Ahmd.)

Issue:-Cenvat credit of service tax is also eligible oninput services which will be used indirectly in relation to the output service.

Brief Facts:- The appellants were en­gaged in manufacturing of water treatment plant, water treatment chemicals as well as providing taxable services under the category of maintenance or repair services; erection, commissioning and installation and were registered with the Central Excise and Service Tax respectively. During the course of audit it was observed that the appellant has availed service tax credit during 1-9-2003 to 10-9-2004, on input services of travel agent, custom house agent, tour operation, tele­phone, insurance, courier, testing services etc. and paid the service tax from the Cenvat credit towards the payment of service tax liability for providing output services of repair, operation & maintenance, erection and commissioning. Whereas it was noticed that as per provision of Rule 2(c) of CCR, 2002 "Input service" means any taxable service received and consumed by a service provider in rela­tion to rendering of output services and as per Rule 4(1) ibid the service tax credit availed on input services may be utilised for payment of service tax on the out­put services. Thus it appeared that the services, for which service tax credit availed and utilised, have not been utilised in relation to rendering the output services. Thereafter show cause notice was issued to initiate proceedings for recovery of wrongly availed Cenvat credit which has culminated in confirma­tion of the demand for the same and with interest and penalty under Sections 76 & 78 of Finance Act, 1994.

 

Reasoning of Judgment:- The Tribunal heard both the sides and finds that the dispute is about the cenvat credit of service tax paid on travel agent service, custom house agent, tour operation, telephone, insurance, courier, testing services etc. during the period from 1-9-2003 to 10-9-2004.

 The Tribunal also finds that Rule 3 of Service Tax Rules, provides that an output service provider shall be entitled to credit of service tax payable on the input services which fall under the same category of taxable service as that of output service, for which invoice/bill is issued on or after 16-8-2002. Subsequently by Notification No. 5/2003-S.T., dated 14-5-2003, benefit of credit of service tax was allowed in re­spect of any service used as input service provided the invoice/challan/bill was issued on or after 14-5-2003. According to the definitions during the relevant pe­riod output service means any taxable service rendered by the service provider to a customer, client, subscriber, policy holder or any other person as the case may be. Input service means any service received and consumed by a service provider in relation to rendering of output service. The Tribunal also finds from the provisions of law as existed during the relevant period it can be seen that there are two requirements to be fulfilled by the service pro­vider. The first one is that the invoice /bill/challan should have been issued after 14-5-2003 and the second requirement is that input services should have been received and consumed in relation to rendering of output service. 

The Tribunal Further finds that the appellant is engaged in manufacturing of water treatment plant, water treatment chemicals as well as providing taxable services under the cate­gory of maintenance or repair services, erection, commissioning and installation service. The services are mainly in relation to water treatment plants manufac­tured by them. Custom house agent service was obtained in relation to importa­tion of components/equipments for manufacture of water treatment plants. Since the appellants are engaged in manufacture of water treatment plants and installation, erection thereof, the service obtained in relation to parts and equip­ments can be said to be in relation to output service also. After all without im­porting parts and equipments neither manufacture nor erection or installation would be possible. Similarly in telephone service and surface area, sample test­ing area services, advertisement charges also can be definitely considered as util­ised in relation to providing the output service. The lower authorities seem to have gone on the assumption that the use has to be direct. The words used are "in relation to rendering of output service". Therefore what is required to be seen is whether the services have been used directly or indirectly in relation to the output service. Under these circumstances, Tribunal finds that credit has been used cor­rectly and appeal has to be allowed.

 Decision:-Appeal is allowed with conse­quential relief to the appellant

 Comment:-  The analogy  of this case is that as per provision of Rule 2(c) of CCR, 2002 "Input service" means any taxable service received and consumed by a service provider in rela­tion to rendering of output services. But the words used are "in relation to rendering of output service". Therefore what is required to be seen is whether the services have been used directly or indirectly in relation to the output service. 

 
 
 
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