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/2016-17/3114

Credit admissibility of Service Tax paid on Private Placement of Shares.

Case:- STEEL STRIPS WHEELS LTD.  VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF C. EX., CHANDIGARH
 
Citation: - 2016 (42) S.T.R. 72 (Tri. – Del. )

 
Brief Facts: -The issue posing for consideration in this appeal is whether the credit of Service Tax paid on the service of the Private Placement of Shares is admissible as input service credit as per the Cenvat Credit Rules.
 
The appellants are engaged in the manufacture of Automotive Wheels falling under Chapter 87 of the CETA, 1985. The appellants availed the service of M/s. MAPE Advisory Group Pvt. Ltd. for raising finance by way of Private Placement of Share of the company with M/s. New Vermon Advisory Services Ltd. as the appellant was in need of finances for implementing Automotive Wheels Line Project in their factory. M/s. MAPE Advisory Group Private Limited charged professional/brokerage fee amounting to Rs. 26,40,000/- for their service and service tax amounting to Rs. 2,69,280/- (including education cess) was paid. The appellants availed the credit of the service tax paid to M/s. MAPE Advisory Private Limited as an input service credit as per the provision of Rule 2(l) of the Cenvat Credit Rules. A show cause notice was issued to the appellants denying the credit on the ground that financial services availed by appellants for disposal of shares are not covered under the definition of “input services.” The appellants defended the show cause notice submitting that the definition of “Input Services” as provided Under Rule 2(l) included banking and financial services which are services used in relation to the business of manufacture. They also contended that the demand is hit by the bar of limitation. The adjudicating authority held against the appellants which was confirmed by the Commissioner (Appeals). Aggrieved by the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) the appellant has filed this appeal.
 
Appellant’s Contention: -On behalf of the appellant, the ld. counsel Ms. Priyanka Goyal submitted that at the relevant time the company was implementing the Automotive Wheel Line Project for which finance was required. The services of M/s. MAPE Advisory Group (P) Ltd. was availed for raising finances by way of private placement of shares. This activity undertaken by the appellants relates to their business as the capital raised by private placement of shares is utilized in the business of manufacture. That the adjudicating authority has failed to appreciate the definition of input service in its right perspective. She relied on the following judgments in Semco Electric Pvt. Ltd. v. CCE, Pune, 2012 (276) E.L.T. 94 (Tri. - Mumbai) = 2012 (25) S.T.R. 73 (Tribunal) and 2013 (30) S.T.R. 572 (Tri. - Mumbai), Aditya Birla Nuvo Ltd. v. CCE - 2009 (14) S.T.R. 304 (Tri. - Ahmedabad) = 2012 (277) E.L.T. 188 (Tri.).
 
Respondent’s contention:- On behalf of revenue it was submitted that the activity of private placement of shares is not an activity used by the appellant directly or indirectly or in relation to the manufacture of the final products. That therefore Cenvat credit is not admissible to such services. He submitted that private placement of shares does not find mention in the definition of input services and therefore Cenvat credit cannot be allowed on such services.
 
Reasoning Of Judgement:-The tribunal have carefully considered the rival submissions. It is the case of the appellant, that they raised capital by private placement of Shares, for the purpose of implementing a new project, the Automotive Wheel Line Project in their factory. The contention of the revenue that such financial services rendered to the appellant for the purpose of raising capital is not related to manufacture directly or indirectly cannot be accepted. The definition of “input service” is not restricted being limited to services which are directly linked to the manufacturing activity. But the definition has a wide ambit and covers services which are relating to business activities of manufacture. In Aditya Birla Nuvo Ltd. v. CCE (supra) it was held that merger charges are covered in the category of services of financing and Cenvat credit is admissible for the same. Therefore, Tribunal was of the view that the service of private placement of shares for raising capital is an input service and credit on the service is to be allowed.In view of the above the impugned order is set aside with consequential relief to the appellant. The appeal is allowed.
 
Decision:-Appeal Allowed.

Comment:- The substance of the case is that raising capital by way of private placement of shares for a new project comes under the ambit of input service as the definition of input service is not restricted being limited to service which are directly linked to the manufacturing activity but it has a wide ambit and covers service which are relating even indirectly to business activities of the assessee.

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