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/2011-12/1499

Cenvat Credit on Rent-a-cab & Tour Operator Service for transporting employees of Factory

Case: C. J. GELATINE PRODUCTS LTD. versus COMMISSIONER OF C.EX. BHOPAL
 
Citation: 2012 (25) S.T.R 109 (Tri-. Delhi)
 
Issue:- Cenvat Credit - Rent-a-cab and tour operator service availed for pick up and dropping of staff and officers of factory - whether essential for manufacturing operations -whether covered by the definition of input service and eligible for Cenvat Credit?
 
Brief Facts:- The Appellant are manufacturers of gelatine chargeable to Central Excise duty. They availed central excise of duty paid on inputs and Service Tax paid on input services used in or in relation to manufacture of their finished products. The point of dispute in this case is as to whether during the period from February, 2005, the Appellant were eligible for Cenvat credit of service tax paid on rent-a-cab service, tour operator service and security the service availed by them. The Jurisdictional Assistant Commissioner holding that these services are not eligible for Cenvat credit denied the Cenvat credit amounting to Rs. 78, 637/- availed in respect of the same and confirmed its demand along with interest and also imposed penalty on them under Rule 15 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. On appeal to Commissioner (Appeals), the order of the original Adjudicating Authority was upheld. Against this order of the Commissioner (Appeals), the present appeal has been filed.
 
Appellant’s Contention:- The Appellant pleaded that service of security agency was availed for security of the factory which is essential for the Appellant-unit, that rent-a-cab and tour operator service was availed for pick up and dropping of the staff and officers of the factory, that both the services are essential for manufacturing operations and, hence, the same are activities related to the manufacturing business of the Appellant and covered by the definition of input service, that the Tribunal in the case of C.C.E., Jaipur-II v. J.K. Cement Works reported in 2009 (14) S.T.R. 538 (Tri.-Del.) has held that rent-a-cab service used for bringing employees to the factory and dropping them back to their residence is covered by the definition of input service, and that, in view of this, the impugned order is not correct.  
 
Respondent’s Contention:-The learned Departmental Representative, defended the impugned order by reiterating the findings of the Commissioner (Appeals) and pleaded that the services, in question, have no nexus with the manufacture of the final product and, hence, are not covered by the definition of input service.
 
Reasoning of Judgment:- The Tribunal held in the case of C.C.E., Jaipur-11 v. J.K. Cement Works (supra) that rent-a-cab service used for bringing the employees to the factory and dropping them back is covered by the definition of input service. Following this judgment of the Tribunal, Tribunal held that the rent-a-cab/tour operator service used by the Appellant for bringing the employees/ workers to the factory and dropping them back is covered by the definition of input service and hence, Cenvat credit would be admissible in respect of the same. As regards the security, there is no dispute that the same has been availed security to the factory. Security service for security of the property of the factory is an essential activity for any manufacturer and so in our view the same is covered by the term "activities related to the business," and therefore, this service would also be covered by the definition of input service and would be eligible for Cenvat credit. In view of the above discussion, the impugned order denying Cenvat credit amounting to Rs. 78,637/- in respect of rent-a-cab/tour operator service and security agency service is not sustainable. The same is set aside.
 
Decision:- Appeal allowed.

Comments

Post a Comment



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