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/2016-17/3133

Credit admissibility for Rent-a-Cab service, cleaning and Repair/Maintenance service of Guest House, Gymnasium etc.

Case:-  MUKAND LTD. VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, BELAPUR
 
Citation:- 2016 (42) S.T.R. 88 (Tri. – Mumbai)

 
Brief Facts:-  The appellant M/s. Mukand Ltd. is registered with Central Excise Department and is engaged in manufacturing of excisable goods falling under Chapters 72, 73 & 84 of Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. A show cause notice dated 13-4-2012 for the extended period April, 2007 to January, 2012 was issued. As per the show cause notice it is alleged that the appellant have wrongly availed Cenvat credit of Service Tax amounting to Rs. 1,80,20,547/- on the input services namely, Rent-a-Cab service, Outdoor Catering service, services by Air Travel Agency, services by CHA in respect of exports, cleaning and Repair/Maintenance service of Guest House, Gymnasium and sports club/sports ground, etc. The assessee was further required to show cause as to why the proposed Cenvat credit not be disallowed and recovered from it, and further as to why not interest be recovered and further why not penalty be imposed under Section 11AC(1)(a) of the Central Excise Act read with Rule 15(2) of the Cenvat Credit Rules. The appellant contested the show cause notice by filing written submissions. Vide Order-in-Original dated 16-7-2013, the Commissioner adjudicated the show cause notice and disallowed part of the proposed disallowance of Cenvat credit for an amount of Rs. 23,03,110/- along with interest and also imposed equal amount of penalty under Rule 15(2) of Cenvat Credit Rules read with Section 11AC. The details of disallowance are indicated in the table below :-
 

Sr. No. Name of the service Amount claimed (in Rs.) Amount of credit disallowed (in Rs.)
1. Canteen expenses 55,62,511/- 16,33,733/-
2. Cleaning expenses 33,182/- 33,182/-
3. Gardening expenses 82,501/- 82,501/-
4. Repair & Maintenance of residential colony 3,63,399/- 3,63,399/-
5. Sport Club/Ground 1570/- 1570/-
6. Vehicle Hire charges 58,63,789/- 1,88,720/-
  Total   23,03,110/-
 

 
 
Appellant’s Contention:-  As regards ‘canteen expenses’, the appellant states that they did not avail any outdoor catering services and they have not taken credit of any Service Tax paid on the same. Within the factory premises, they are maintaining their canteen, which is also a statutory requirement under Section 46 of the Factories Act. The appellant has about 1000 employees working in their factory. Appellant is availing the service of an agency to supply them the required manpower/labour to enable them to run the canteen. They have taken credit of the Service Tax paid on the services utilized by them without deployment of manpower to run their canteen. Thus, the input service is not in the nature of canteen service or outdoor canteen service and further the activity of running and maintaining the canteen is relating to the manufacturing business and accordingly, are entitled to the input service under Rule 2(l) of Cenvat Credit Rules. The learned Commissioner has also accepted that the maintenance of canteen is essential and is an essential input for the manufacturing activity but at the same time disallowed proportionate sum pertaining to the amount collected from the employees. The appellant vehemently argues that there being no outdoor catering service availed, no proportionate disallowance was called for. Further, the appellant have not recovered any amount of Service Tax incurred on the deployment of manpower for running the canteen and accordingly is relying on the ruling of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Ultratech Cement Ltd. and prays for setting aside the disallowance in respect of canteen expenses.
 
As regards the repair and maintenance of residential colony amounting to Rs. 3,63,309/-, the same is not pressed and the ground stands withdrawn. Also the demand towards maintenance of sports club/ground Rs. 1,570/- is not pressed and ground stands withdrawn.
As regards the proportionate disallowance of vehicle hiring charges, the appellant vehemently urges that there was no such proposal in the show cause notice to disallow the proportionate amount, being Service Tax credit pertaining to the amount collected from the employees. As such, the same is beyond the scope of show cause notice and accordingly, fit to be set aside.
As regards gardening expenses, it is pointed out that the same are essential for running the factory in support of which the appellant have produced the “Consent to operate” letter issued by the ‘Maharashtra Pollution Control Board’ dated 26-3-2007, wherein the Pollution Control Board considering the parameters that the Trade Effluent and discharge sewage, etc., have given the consent subject to the condition that green belt afforestation is to be done up to 33% on available open space land as per the said consent letter. Thus, maintenance/afforestation and green belt in and around factory premises is an essential part, is the Mandatory Activity under the law of the land, so as to comply with the provisions of Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 and Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981 read with relevant Rules. Accordingly, the disallowance is uncalled for and pleads the same to be set aside.
As regards cleaning expenses of Rs. 33,182/-, it is stated that the residential colony is situated within the factory premises, forming part of the factory area, as per approved map by the Central Excise authority.Further, the colony is an ‘industrial township’ and the appellant is responsible to provide all types of municipal services in the colony. As such, the disallowance is bad, and fit to be set aside.
 
 
Respondent’s Contention:-The respondent reiterated the findings of the lower authorities.
 
 
Reasoning Of Judgment: Having considered the rival contentions and perusing the appeal filed and the documents produced by the appellant, as regards the ‘canteen expenses’, which is only the labour component for manpower engaged for running the canteen, Tribunal hold that no proportionate disallowance is called for as there is no element of outdoor catering nor there is any element for recovery of Service Tax from the employees.
As regards the ‘gardening expenses’, the credit on the same is fully allowable as the same is required for maintaining the good atmosphere in the manufacturing area and also a condition precedent as laid down by the State Pollution Control Board, without which the appellant cannot resort to manufacturing Activity.
As regards the ‘cleaning expenses’, the same have been incurred in the maintenance of residential colony, which forms part of the factory premises, Tribunal take notice of the fact that the colony is part of the factory premises as per the approved map by the Central Excise authorities. Further, there is no municipality in the area where the factory and colony is located for providing the services of township maintenance. The colony is a small industrial township, created by the appellant for running its factory and as an industrial township; the same is required to be maintained by the Industry itself (Article 243 of the Constitution of India). As such the disallowance of cleaning expenses is set aside. As regards the proportionate disallowance for the vehicle hiring charges, Tribunal found that there is no allegation in the show cause notice to disallow any proportionate amount towards the amount recovered in part from the employees and as such the said disallowance is held to be unsustainable and the same is set aside.
 
In view of the above findings, the appeal is allowed.
 
Decision:-Appeal allowed.

Comment:- The crux of the case is that the benefit of cenvat credit is admissible as far as the services are related to manufacturing activities or are statutorily required to be availed in accordance with the provisions of any law for the time being in force.

Prepared By: - Alakh Bhandari
 
 
 

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