Chartered Accountant
Bookmark and Share
click here to subscribe our newsletter
 
 
Corporate News *  The GSTN has issued an Advisory dated 21.04.2026 about the introduction of an Offline Tool for the Invoice Management System (IMS)  *  CBIC extends due dates for filing of FORM GSTR 3B  for the month of April 2026 *  Interest cannot be imposed in adjudication order, if not demanded/quantified in show cause notice : Allahabad HC *  Wheelchairs with toileting facility eligible for exemption: CESTAT affirms customs duty exemption to importer *  Industries urge GST council to allow inverted duty refunds on input services *  Tamil Nadu GST dept introduced virtual hearing facility for GST appeals under under section 107 of the TNGST act: detailed guidelines  *  CIC urges authorities to implement GST evasion complaint tracking system *  Even if the assessee opts "NO" for personal hearing in form DRC-06 ,The mandatory requirement under section 75(4) to grant opportunity of hearing cannot be waived:Gujarat High Court  *  Glufosinate imports curbs imposed by govt *  Government extends Re-import period for exported cut & polished diamonds *  CIC flags lack of tracking system for tax evasion complaints,urges GST authorities to improve transparency *  No Custodial Interrogation needed in GST fraud case based on documentary evidence already in Department's Possession : Chattisgarh HC *  Orders under section cannot be sustained if passed without considering the taxpayer's objections and without granting a personal hearing:Gujarat High Court *  Mere cancellation of supplier's registration cannot,by itself,justify denial of ITC or cancellation of the recipient's registration:Bombay High Court *  High Court sets aside GST notice citing factual errors and natural justice violations *  Provisional Bank Attachment under Section. 110 of Customs Act Unsustainable Beyond Statutory period without Extension order: Bombay HC orders to defreeze accounts *  Post Clearance MRP Alteration by Distributor Does not attract Differential Customs Duty: CESTAT *  DGFT Expands scope of 'Screws' classification under RoDTEP Scheme  *  E-way bills surze to all time high of 140.6 million in March *  GST Exemption Allowed on Pure Labour Services for Standalone Houses: AAR  *  GST Payable Only on Margin in Second-Hand Car Sales, Subject to Strict Conditions and No ITC Claim: AAR *  DGFT rolls out procedure for allocation of calcined coke *  GST portal update : Pre-deposit amount now editable in Appeals *  J&K HC declared TMT scrap a 'Specified Good' eligibile for GST refunds under Support Scheme  *  Pigmy agents are employees of banks; no GST can be levied on commission  paid to them : Karnataka HC *  DGFT Revises HS Code Description for Screws Under RoDTEP *  GST Registration Cancellation Invalid Without Proper Service of Notice: Allahabad High Court. *  Bengaluru CGST | GST Backlog Appeals Deadline Fixed at June 30, 2026 *  No Time Bar on Refund of Service Tax for Services Not Rendered: CESTAT  Remands Indiabulls Case for Unjust Enrichment Check. *  Supreme Court Holds Renewable Energy Incentive Must Benefit Generators, Not Be Adjusted in Tariff
Subject News *   Delhi HC Quashes Order, Says Reminder Cannot Validate Improperly Served GST SCN *  KARNATAKA HIGH COURT REMANDS GST SHORTFALL MATTER DUE TO ABSENCE OF PERSONAL HEARING   *  CESTAT cancels confiscation and penalties on imported computer cabinet cases: Custom duty restricted to 111 surplus units *  Deposit of tax during search or investigation cannot be treated as 'Voluntary Payment' : Bombay High Court *  Section 76 of the CGST cannot be invoked where the tax has already been duly deposited, even if through another registration of the same entity: Madras High Court *  Sec 74 allows use of material regardless of source; illegality or flaws in section 67 search do not vitiate valid adjudication: HC *  Inter-State transfer of ITC on Amalgamation permissible as given under section 18(3) read with rule 41 of the CGST rules, 2017: Gujarat High Court *  HC: No GST on commisson paid to Pigmy Agents *  IGST refund denial on illegible bill of lading invalid absent chance to furnish docs; merit reconsideration in appeals directed: HC *  ITC is not admissible on GST paid on leasehold rights of land used fpr setting up an air seperation plant: AAAR,Tamil Nadu *  GST: No penalty under Section 74 after voluntary ITC reversal due to non-existent supplier : High Court *  TN AAAR denies GST ITC on Land Lease under Sec. 17(5)(d) for setting up plant and machinery *  GST proceedings quashed as notices sent to old address, despite updated address in registration *  Importer Can’t Be Penalised for Alleged IGCR Procedural Lapses Without Evidence of Departmental Error: CESTAT *  Structured Healthcare Training Not ‘Charitable Activity’, 18% GST Payable: AAR  *  CESTAT As The Appellate Authority For Central Sales Tax Disputes: A Paradigm Shift Under Finance Act, 2023 *   Rs. 25K Cost Imposed On SGST Joint Commissioner for Attaching Bank  Accounts Without Forming Mandatory “Opinion”: Bombay HC *   Ex-Parte GST Order Without Hearing Violates Natural Justice: Karnataka  High Court Quashes Adjudication and Bank Attachment.  *   Retrospective GST Cancellation Can’t Invalidate Genuine Transactions:  Jaipur Commissioner (Appeals) Quashes Rs. 95,670 ITC Demand. *   GST Pre-Deposit Non-Compliance: Allahabad High Court Allows Appeal  Subject to Rs. 30 Lakh Balance Deposit, Recognises Offline Filing. *  Documentary Nature of Evidence: Allahabad High Court Grants Bail in Rs. 32.66 Crore Fake ITC Fraud Case *  Supreme Court Flags Systemic Bias in Army’s Permanent Commission Process for Women Officers *  Re-Determination of Land Compensation Can Be Based on Appellate Court Awards, Clarifies Scope of S. 28-A: Supreme Court. *  Supreme Court Imposes Rs. 5 Lakh Costs On Rent Authority Officer For Acting Beyond Jurisdiction. *  DGGI Meerut | Court Denies Bail to Accused in Claiming Fake ITC And Export Refunds *  Denial of GST Rate Revision Benefit to Contractor Violates Article 14: Rajasthan HC *  GST Registration Cancellation for Non-Filing of Returns: Gauhati High Court Directs Restoration on Compliance. *   Supreme Court Quashes FEMA Adjudication Orders, Revives Proceedings at  Show Cause Stage. *   Higher Rank, Harsher Punishment Justified: Supreme Court Restores Dismissal  of Bank Manager in Misappropriation Case. *   Limitation for Export Refund to Be Counted from Foreign Exchange Realisation,  Not From Export Invoices Issuance: CESTAT  

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