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/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