Chartered Accountant
Bookmark and Share
click here to subscribe our newsletter
 
 
Corporate News *  GST registration cancellation without reasons amounts to ‘Economic Death’ of business: Supreme Court. *  No GST refund if appeal before GSTAT is filed late: Gujarat High Court. *  Mere upload of GST notice on portal not valid service, appeal limitation won’t start: Punjab & Haryana High Court. *  Taxpayer can’t be penalised for missing notices hidden under ‘Additional Notices/Orders’: Calcutta High Court allows fresh adjudication. *  State tax officer can’t issue GST SCN beyond CBIC-assigned jurisdiction: Bombay High Court stays recovery proceedings. *  Earlier 7.5% Pre-Deposit must count towards mandatory 10% for Appeal: Uttarakhand high court quashes CESTAT Order. *  Third Parties can’t challenge GST Advance Rulings merely due to financial impact: Karnataka HC *  GST SCN generated using AI tool quashed: Punjab & Haryana High Court *  Bank Attachment Quashed as Madras HC Quashes GST Order Issued Against Deceased Person *  ITC Blocking Order for Failure to Record ‘Reason to Believe’ U/R 86A Quashed: Allahabad High Court *  Govt Extends GSTAT Appeal Filing Deadline From 30 June to July 31, 2026 *  GST Demand on RWA Stayed: Allahabad High Court Questions Taxability of Electricity Distribution to Flat Owners *  CBIC Clarifies Jurisdiction After GST Registration Transfer: Earlier Proceedings Remain Valid, New Officer to Continue Action *  GST authorities’ certification not mandatory for reimbursement, but tax payment must be proven: Karnataka HC *  Contractor can’t seek gst reimbursement through writ when contract has arbitration clause: Karnataka HC *  Unsigned Order Is No Order in Law: AP HC Quashes GST Assessment Order for Want of Officer’s Signature *  Customs Can’t Levy Rs. 1.36 Crore Cost Recovery Charges Without Proof of Full-Day Officer Deployment: CESTAT  *  12% IGST Payable On Imported Dialysis Machine Parts: CESTAT *  Bombay High Court Admits Challenge to GST Limitation Extension Notifications; Grants Protection Against Coercive Recovery *  Criminal Case Can’t Run Parallel to GST Proceedings on Same Facts: Allahabad High Court *  Allahabad High Court Stays GST Detention Order; Directs Release of Vehicle and Goods on Deposit of Rs. 1.44 Lakh *  Service Tax Can’t Be Levied on Loss-Making Contracts: Gujarat High Court *  GSTN Mandates Ship-to GSTIN in e-Invoice and e-Way Bill APIs; Introduces Voluntary e-Way Bill Closure Facility from August 1, 2026 *  GST Appeal Can’t Be Rejected as Time-Barred When Taxpayer Was Pursuing Rectification Remedy: Telangana High Court *  Absence of E-Way Bill and Transport Documents Justifies Customs Seizure U/s 110: Gauhati HC *  Madras High Court Upholds GST Late Fee and Penalty for Non-Filing of Annual Return, Dismisses Challenge  *  GST Records, Purchase Documents Sufficient to Discharge Burden Under Customs Act: CESTAT Orders Release of 3.65 Kg Gold  *  No Sugar Cess Payable on Sugar Exported Out of India: CESTAT *  Road Construction Services Exempt and SCN Time-Barred: CESTAT Quashes Service Tax Demand Based Solely on Form 26AS  *  ITC Freeze Upheld After GST Dept Find Suppliers Were Allegedly Fake Bill-Trading Entities: Madras HC 
Subject News *  Input service benefits can’t be denied: CESTAT allows export refund despite MMTC acting as Canalising agency. *  No service tax demand without proof of service of SCN: CESTAT. *  Service tax demand quashed as dept. fails to prove service of SCN: CESTAT *  GST : Mere allegation of inadequate consideration of reply not enough to invoke writ jurisdiction: Delhi High Court *  Onerous conditions imposed for provisional release of seized imported goods shouldn’t amount to virtual denial of relief: CESTAT. *  GST SCN without alleging fraud cannot invoke sec. 74: Karnataka High Court quashes adjudication order. *  Extended Limitation Can’t Be Invoked Merely on Form 26AS Data: CESTAT *  Revenue-Sharing with Restaurants Not Taxable as Business Support Service: CESTAT *  R. 6(3) Option Can’t Be Forced on Taxpayer; CESTAT Quashes Rs. 12.36 Crore CENVAT Credit Demand *  Excise Duty | Power Consumption Alone Can’t Prove Clandestine Manufacture: Karnataka High Court *  Madras High Court Examines DGGI’s Authority to Issue GST Penalty Orders Under Section 122, Adds DGGI as Party *  Proceedings under omitted r. 96(10) can’t survive without saving clause: andhra pradesh high court quashes gst refund recovery *  Excise duty power consumption alone can’t prove clandestine manufacture: karnataka high court *  Madras high court rules GST show cause notices must disclose grounds for invoking extended limitation *  Court Can’t Direct Extension GST Return Deadlines or Waive Interest and Penalties: Karnataka High Court *  GST Notifications Can’t Go Beyond GST Council Recommendations: Madras High Court Quashes SCN on Branded Pulses *  Appeal Can’t Be Dismissed for Delay When Dept’s Own Order Mis-states Limitation Period: CESTAT *  No Evidence of KYC or Due Diligence Breach By Customs Broker: CESTAT Quashes Licence Revocation in Export Overvaluation Case *  Glucometers Are Chemical Analysis Instruments Classifiable Under Tariff Heading 9027: CESTAT *  Validity of Post-GST Service Tax Proceedings Upheld: Gujarat High Court Dismisses Challenge to S. 73 SCN *  Rectified GST Refund Applications Can’t Be Rejected as Time-Barred If Original Refund Claim Was Filed Within Limitation: Gujarat HC *  Service Tax Refund Can’t Be Denied as Time-Barred When Levy Itself Is Unconstitutional: Gujarat High Court *  Same Officer Can’t Act As Auditor & Adjudicator: Karnataka High Court *  Karnataka High Court Condones 324-Day Delay, Revives Customs Appeal in Jewellery Pilferage Case  *  Madras High Court Quashes GST Assessment Order Passed Ex Parte Despite Prior ITC Reversal; Lifts Bank Attachment *  Tobacco Process Doesn’t Amount to Manufacturing: Madras High Court Quashes Rs. 1.32 Crore Compensation Cess Demand  *  Recovery Notice Unsustainable After Voluntary Reversal of Unutilised Credit: CESTAT  *  GST | ‘System Generated’ SCN Without Officer Details Invalid: Allahabad HC  *  Electronic Records Without Statutory Certification Requirements Can’t Justify Undervaluation Allegations: CESTAT *  Madras High Court Stays GST Order, Finds Prima Facie Merit in Plea Against S. 74 Proceedings Based on S. 73 Intimation  

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