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 law/2014-15/2249

Eligibility of credit of various input services.

Case:-  GOLDEN TOBACCO LTD. Versus COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, MUMBAI-I
 
Citation:- 2013 (30) S.T.R. 594 (Tri. - Mumbai)
 

 Brief facts:-The appellant M/s. Golden Tobacco Ltd. are manufacturers of cigarette and availed CENVAT credit of service tax paid on various services under 64 invoices and credit availed is in respect of 14 categories of services. The services are certification of the factory work, payment made to advocates for legal services related to manufacturing activities, repair and maintenance of the factory, audit and accounting of the factory, packaging services for export purposes, advertisement expenses, quality upgradation and so on. The department was of the view that the appellant is not entitled for CENVAT credit on the service tax paid on the services and issued a show-cause notice dated 6-4-2011 in respect of CENVAT credit of Rs. 1,51,611/- availed in March, 2010. The only allegation in the show is that the services on which credit has been availed are not “input service” as defined in CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004. The said show-cause notice was adjudicated by the original authority vide order dated 9-11-2011 but there is no discussion made in the said order as to how the services have no nexus with the manufacturing activity undertaken by the appellant. On the contrary, the appellant has categorized the services received and also explained the nexus between the service received and the manufacturing activity undertaken. There is no rebuttal of the claims of the appellant by the original authority. The original authority merely confirmed the demand mentioned in the show-cause notice along with interest thereon and also imposed a penalty of Rs. 2,000/-. The appellant preferred an appeal before the lower appellate authority who, without discussing the nature of the services and their nexus with the manufacturing activity undertaken by the appellant, mechanically dismissed the appeal and hence the appellant is before Tribunal.
 
 
Appellant’s contentions:-The learned Advocate appearing for the appellant submits that the Hon’ble High Court of Bombay, in the case of Ultratech Cement Ltd. - 2010 (260)E.L.T.369 (Bom.) = 2010 (20)S.T.R.577 (Bom.)has held that so long as there is a nexus with the business of manufacturing of final products, the service availed is an eligible for input service as defined in Rule 2(l) of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004. In their submission before the lower authorities, they have clearly explained the nature of services received and its nexus with the manufacturing activity. From these submissions, it is very clear that the services availed are integrally connected with the manufacturing activity and hence they are rightly entitled for the credit.
 
 
Respondent’s contentions:- The learned AR appearing for the Revenue reiterates the findings of the lower authorities.
 
Reasoning of judgment:- As the issue lies in a narrow compass, tribunal is of the view that the appeal itself can be disposed of at this stage itself. Therefore, after dispensing with the requirement of pre-deposit of the dues adjudged, they take up the appeal for consideration.
From the submissions made by the appellant, the services on which credit has been availed relate to audit and accounting services, repair and maintenance services, packaging service, legal services, etc. All these services have nexus and are integrally connected with the business of manufacturing and therefore, they are all eligible “input service” as defined in Rule 2(l) of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004. The decision of the Hon’ble High Court of Bombay in the case of Ultratech Cement Ltd. (supra) applies to the facts of this case.
 
In view of the above findings, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed.

Decision:- Appeal allowed.
 
Comment:- The analogy of the case is that input services like Audit, Accounting and Legal service, Repair and Maintenance service, and Packaging services etc. are eligible for availment of cenvat credit because all these services have nexus and are integrally connected with business of manufacturing. Hence, these are as input services on which assessee is entitled to take credit of Service Tax paid by them.
 
Prepared by: Monika Tak.

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