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 Laws/2011-12/1242

Cenvat Credit of service tax on telephones installed outside factory – admissibility of.
Case: KELTECH ENERGIES LTD.  V/s COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, MANGALORE
 
Citation: 2008 (087) RLT 0453 (CESTAT-Ban.)
 

Issue:- Cenvat Credit of service tax on telephones installed outside factory – admissibility of.

Brief Facts: - Appellant-manufacturer had availed Service Tax credit on Telephone Services (mobile phones and landline phones installed outside the factory i.e. in the residence of the Directors and Officers of the Company) for the period from 1-12-2004 to 30-9-2005 and another period from March, 2004 to November, 2004. Revenue alleged that such availment of credit as wrong utilization and issued Show Cause Notices for denying the credit.

 

The Lower Authorities held that since the appellant have used credit in respect of the mobile phones and landline phones installed outside the factory, they do not qualify as input services.

 

Hence, appellant is before the Tribunal.

Appellant’s Contention: - Appellant submits that the Mumbai Tribunal in the case of Indian Rayon & Industries Ltd. v. CCE, Bhavnagar [2006 (004) STR 0079 (Tri.-Mumbai)], has held that in terms of Rule 4(1) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, the assessee is eligible to avail Cenvat credit in respect of mobile phones. They submit that the same criteria would apply in respect of telephones installed in the Directors' and Officers' premises, as the telephone bills are paid by the company. The telephones are being used for business purpose only. Reference was made to the judgment of the Ahmedabad Tribunal in Excel Crop Care Limited v. CCE, Ahmedabad [2007 (007) STR 0451 (Tri.-Ahmd.)] wherein all input service credit availed on mobile phones has been held to be eligible.

 

Respondent’s Contention: - Revenue submits that the view expressed by the Commissioner (Appeals) is correct and they are not eligible to avail the input credit in respect of mobile phones and landline phones installed outside the factory. They submit that in the case of Indian Rayon and Industries, the period was subsequent to the amendment carried out to the concerned Rules.

Reasoning of Judgement: - The Tribunal noticed that the mobile phones and land-line phones have been installed by the Company for business purpose and the bills are paid by the company. Therefore, it has to be considered as input services and that they are eligible for the benefit of the Cenvat credit. Similar issue was decided by the Mumbai bench in the case of Indian Rayons and Industries Ltd. and the Ahmedabad Bench in the case of Excel Crop Care Ltd., wherein the benefit of input services with regard to the mobile phones have been upheld. The Tribunal held that this ratio would also apply for the land-line phones installed in the Directors' and Company Officials' residence, as the bills are paid by the company and the telephones are used for business purpose. The appellant's contention that they are eligible for the Cenvat Credit in respect of mobile/landline phones is upheld. The impugned order is set aside.

 

Decision: - Appeals allowed with consequential relief.

 

Comment:- This judgement shows the consistent view of Tribunal that mobile phones and telephones, if registered in the name of the company and used for the purpose of the business, even if they are not installed in the factory of production would be eligible for Cenvat Credit. However the definition of input services has been changed from 01.04.2011 the words activities relating to business has been deleted, whether the above view is still upheld by the court is to be seen.

 
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