Chartered Accountant
Bookmark and Share
click here to subscribe our newsletter
 
 
Corporate News *  Dept. Can’t Classify Product as Zarda Scented Tobacco After Repeatedly Approving It As Chewing Tobacco: CESTAT *  Mere Uploading Of GST Order On Portal Is Not “Valid” Service: Tripura HC *  CGST Can Proceed Even If SGST Closed Similar Case Earlier: Delhi HC *  SC upholds 28% GST on online gaming with retrospective effect. *  West Bengal Govt cuts E-way Bill Threshold limit to Rs. 50,000 for intra-state goods movement. *  Criminal Prosecution Under Central Excise Act Can’t Continue After CESTAT Sets Aside Duty Demand on Merits: Punjab & Haryana High Court. *  Madras High Court Quashes GST Assessment Orders for Denial of Personal Hearing; Remands Matter Subject to 10% Deposit *  Ex Parte GST Order: Madras High Court Directs Immediate Removal of Bank/ITC Attachment Upon 25% Deposit *  J.K. Cement Receives GST Demand Order of Rs 8,02,113/- from Ahmedabad Tax Authority *  Delhi Police EOW Busts Alleged Rs. 128 Crore GST Fake Invoice Network. *  REPLY TO SCN CAN’T BE TREATED AS “EMPTY FORMALITY”: ORISSA HIGH COURT QUASHES GST DEMAND OF RS. 57.30 LAKH *  Challenge to CGST Provisions restricting ITC to Bonafide Purchasers : Allahabad HC issues notice *  CBIC Notifies Revised Customs Tariff Values for Edible Oils, Gold, Silver, Brass Scrap and Areca Nuts *  Delhi HC Orders Removal of GST Attachment After Statutory 1 Year Period Expired *  GSTAT Extends Relaxed Appeal Filing Guidelines till December 31, 2026 *  AO fails to Provide Import - Export Data from DGFT to Taxpayer for Reconciliation *  Gold, Silver Imports To Get Costlier As Govt Raises Customs Duty To 10%  *  GSTAT Enables Pre-Payment Access to Document Upload and Checklist for GST Appeal Filing *  GST Portal Restrictions Can’t Override Statute: Gujarat HC Allows Cross-State Transfer Of CGST ITC After Amalgamation *  Centre Revises HS Codes for Large Diameter Steel Pipes Used in Oil & Gas Pipelines *  Customs Duty Liability Arises On Warehouse Clearance Date: Supreme Court *  Government lifts export ban on de-oiled rice bran *  CESTAT Grants 12% Interest on Pre-Deposit for Investigation from Date of Deposit till Refund and Denies Interest on Interest. *  Government Overhauls GST Classification Framework for Non-Alcoholic Beverages; Fruit Juice Drinks, Milk-Based Beverages and Caffeinated Drinks to Attract Revised 5% and 40% GST Rates from May 1, 2026 *  India’s gross GST collections hit a record Rs 2.42 lakh crore in April, up 8.7% *  Customs clearance stalled, revenue hit over MRP dispute *  Shipping Corporation explores Middle East routes as Hormuz tensions disrupt cargo movement *  India, Kenya signs MoU for exchange of pre-arrival customs information *  No demand of Taxes under Reverse Charge if Tax Already Discharged by Service Provider under forward charge *  The India-New Zealand Free Trade Agreement, signed "once-in-a-generation" deal that eliminates tariffs on 100% of Indian exports to New Zealand
Subject News *  Consignment Sales Can’t Be Reclassified as Inter-State Sales Based on Pre-Agreement Evidence: CESTAT *  Exporter Can’t Be Denied Advance Authorization Benefit Due To ICEGATE Technical Glitch: Delhi High Court *  No GST Demand For Mere Wrong Set-Off Of IGST Credit Under CGST And SGST Heads: Kerala HC. *  Cenvat Credit Can’t Be Denied on Input Services Having Nexus With Manufacturing Activities: CESTAT *  Pending Proceedings Can’t Survive Without Saving Clause: Calcutta High Court Quashes GST Demand of Rs. 6.28 Crore After Omission of Rule 96(10) *  Madras HC Quashes GST Demands on TASMAC (Tamil Nadu State Marketing Corporation) Bar Licence Fee *  GST Proceedings Cannot Survive Omitted Rule Without Saving Clause: Calcutta HC *  Provisional Release Can’t Be Denied Solely On Dept. Suspicion Of Misclassification And Undervaluation Of Imported Goods: CESTAT *  Businesses Should Not Be Kept Outside GST Regime Without Due Process: Gauhati High Court *  Punjab & Haryana HC Directs Reconsideration of Contractors’ Claim for Additional GST Payment After Tax Rate Hike From 12% to 18% *  S. 108 Statements Can’t Be Sole Basis Without Following Section 138B Procedure: CESTAT *  Bombay High Court Frames Key Questions on Mandatory Distribution of ITC U/s 20 CGST Act *  Filing of Annexure-B for Refund Applications involving Accumulated ITC using the offline utility in GST portal: GSTN *  No Service Tax on Parent Company’s Un-Invoiced Cost Allocations Without Actual Service or Consideration: CESTAT  *  Calcutta High Court Upholds GST Classification of Polypropylene Leno Bags as Plastic Products *  DRC-01 Summary Can’t Replace Mandatory SCN: Gauhati High Court *  GSTAT Issues Major Bench Allocation Framework; All Appeals to First Go Before Division Bench *  ITC Blocking Without Reasoned Order Violates Rule 86A; Punjab & Haryana HC Directs Release of Credit *  Allahabad HC Refuses Bail to CGST Superintendent In Rs. 70 Lakh Bribery Case *  S.130 Can’t Be Invoked Without Prior Tax Determination U/s 73/74: Allahabad High Court Quashes GST Confiscation Proceedings *  SC grants Bail to Rs 54cr GST case  *  Karnataka HC Sets Aside Duplicate GST Orders, Orders Fresh Hearing on GSTIN Cancellation *  DRC-01 Summary Can’t Replace Mandatory SCN: Gauhati High Court *  Transfer Of Unutilized ITC After Amalgamation - Supreme Court Issues Notice *  PUNJAB & HARYANA HC QUASHES GST CANCELLATION NOTICE FOR FAILURE TO PROVIDE CBIC ENQUIRY REPORT *  LICENSE FEE, TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE CHARGES NOT INCLUDIBLE IN CUSTOMS VALUE UNLESS THEY ARE A CONDITION OF SALE: CESTAT *  DELHI HC ORDERS REMOVAL OF GST ATTACHMENT AFTER STATUTORY 1 YEAR PERIOD EXPIRED *  CUSTOMS BROKER CAN’T BE FAULTED JUST BECAUSE EXPORTER’S GST REGISTRATION WAS PREVIOUSLY CANCELLED: CESTAT   *  Supreme Court Dismisses Review Plea Against Delhi HC Ruling Holding Real Operator Behind Fake GST Firms Liable As ‘Taxable Person  *  GST Appeal Can’t Be Rejected Merely Because DRC-07 Was Not Uploaded On Portal: Bombay High Court  

Comments

Print   |    |  Comment

PJ/Case Law/2013-14/2083

Eligibility of credit on insurance and authorised station service availed for vehicles maintained by manufacturer.

Case:- M/s BIRLA CORPORATION LTDVs COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, BHOPAL

Citation:- 2014-TIOL-05-CESTAT-DEL

Brief facts:-The appellant is common in both the appeals and is a company engaged in the business of manufacture of excisable goods, cement and cement clinker. The appellant availed cenvat credit on inputs, input services and capital goods under Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 (2004 Rules). During audit of the appellants, Revenue observed that it availed cenvat credit of service tax during the periods April 2007 to August 2009; September 2009 to March 2010; April 2010 to December 2010; and January 2011 to September 2011, on the basis or several bills of invoices issued by service providers for Business Auxiliary Service (commission agent); Insurance Auxiliary Service (towards motor vehicle insurance) and authorised service station service (motor vehicles).
Consequently four show cause notices were issued covering the periods April 2007 to August 2009 and September 2009 to March 2010; and April 2010 to December 2010 and January 2011 to September 2011. After due process, the adjudicating authority dropped demand of service tax, interest and penalty in so far as the appellant had availed cenvat credit in respect of the input pertaining to Business Auxiliary Service (commission agent). The authority however assessed liability to service tax, interest and penalties on other input services in respect of which the show cause notices were issued, namely insurance auxiliary service (motor vehicle insurance) and authorised service station service (motor vehicle repair). The appellant as part of its business as a manufacturer of cement and allied products owns several vehicles and gets the vehicles serviced with authorised service station/other service stations. Insurance auxiliary service and authorised service station are taxable services. The appellant therefore availed these input services and had remitted the component of service taxes payable by those service providers to Revenue. It availed cenvat credit of the tax component remitted in relation to these input services, of insurance and authorised service station services. This was disallowed by the adjudicating authority.
The adjudicating authority disallowed cenvat credit in respect of the aforesaid two input services on the ground that the appellant failed to establish any nexus between its output and the two services. For this conclusion the authority relied inter alia on the decision of Supreme Court in Maruti Suzuki Ltd. vs. CCE - 2009 (240) ELT 641 (SC) = (2009-TIOL-94-SC-CX) and assumed that the use of the input service should be integrally connected with the manufacture of the final product.

Appellant’s contention:-The appellant contented that any service used by the provider of a taxable service or excisable goods manufactured, used in relation to getting miscellaneous repairs of the premises of the provider of output service or for an office relating to such premises, procurement of inputs, activity relating to business such as inter alia inward transportation of inputs or capital goods and output transportation to the place of removal, would constitute input service.

Respondent’s contention:-The respondent reiterated the findings of the lower authorities.

Reasoning of judgment:- The tribunal observed that this issue came to be considered in several judgments of this Tribunal. In KPMG vs. CCE, New Delhi - 2013-TIOL-761-CESTAT-DEL(CESTAT- DEL), the ambit of Rule 2(l) of the 2004 Rules was considered. This Tribunal held that on a true and fair construction of the definition of input service in Rule 2(l), it is clear that any service used by the provider of a taxable service or excisable goods manufacturer, used in relation to getting miscellaneous repairs of the premises of the provider of output service or for an office relating to such premises, procurement of inputs, activity relating to business such as inter alia inward transportation of inputs or capital goods and output transportation to the place of removal, would constitute input service.
"Input service" is broadly defined, as any service used for providing an output service or any service used by the manufacturer, whether directly or indirectly, or in relation to the manufacture of final products and clearance of final products from the place of removal. In this context of the statutory definition of input service, the conclusion is irresistible that the vehicles owned and used by the appellant for efficient execution of its business of manufacture of cement and allied products and the expenditure incurred in the legitimate use of such vehicles i.e. by obtaining statutory insurance for the vehicles and expenditure incurred for their maintenance i.e. for periodical service of the vehicles, would be inputs and wherever the service providers, of insurance of the vehicles or for maintenance of such vehicles are compensated in respect of the service tax payable by those entities for having provided the taxable services, those amounts could lawfully be treated as input services on which cenvat credit could be availed.
On the aforesaid premises the impugned order was held unsustainable and is accordingly quashed. The common adjudication order dated 25.09.2012 passed by the Commissioner, Central Excise & Service Tax, Raipur order-in-original Nos. 43 & 44/Comr/CEX/ADJ/STN/2012 dated 25.09.2012; was quashed. The appeals are allowed as above but in the circumstances without costs.

Decision:-Appeal allowed.

Comment:- The substance of this case is that input services includes any service whether directly or indirectly used for providing an output service or any service used by the manufacturer, whether directly or indirectly, or in relation to the manufacture of final products and clearance of final products from the place of removal and hence credit for all such inputs and input services is admissible. In the present case, as the vehicles were maintained by the manufacturer that facilitated in better transportation of goods, the credit of service tax paid for insurance and authorised service station services was allowed to them.
 

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