Chartered Accountant
Bookmark and Share
click here to subscribe our newsletter
 
 
Corporate News *  Service tax penalty can’t survive when assessee acted on dept.’s own view of non-taxability: Delhi High Court. *  GST section 74 extended limitation questionable when form 26AS mismatch was already known: Karnataka High Court grants interim relief. *  CGST demand prima facie impermissible after state GST settlement under section 128A: Bombay High Court. *  Supreme Court asks GSTAT to sympathetically consider delay as taxpayers pursued remedy before wrong forum. *  Supreme Court stays Tripura High Court ruling protecting genuine buyers from ITC denial over supplier’s GST default. *  Diary entries alone can’t prove clandestine removal of goods: CESTAT quashes excise penalty on steel trader. *  Customs could investigate preferential tariff claims even before sec. 28DA: Delhi High Court. *  Customs dept. relied on fake AI generated case laws: supreme court quashes Rs. 425.28 crore penalty. *  No GST exemption in affiliation and annual registration charges for admission or conduct Of examinations: GSTAT. *  Mere invoices, cheque payments insufficient to establish genuine movement of goods: GSTAT restores Rs. 43.44 lakh ITC demand. *  Consolidated GST show cause notice covering multiple financial years is not without jurisdiction: Delhi High Court. *  Construction of independent houses on separate plots not taxable as ‘Residential Complex’ without common facilities: CESTAT. *  GST penalty exceeding statutory maximum unsustainable; Allahabad High Court quashes ? 50,000/- penalty after taxpayer filed return and paid late fee. *  GST order against standard chartered bank passed without hearing set aside by Bombay High Court. *  Retracted statements can’t be relied upon without cross-examination: CESTAT quashes gold confiscation. *  Burden to prove misclassification lies on customs department: CESTAT. *  CESTAT quashes Rs. 98 lakh excise demand on clearance of used refractory brick scrap. *  Service tax demand on irrigation works quashed: Karnataka High Court rules sale of goods component not taxable as service. *  GSTAT restores tax and penalty for transporting iron scrap without E-way bill citing intent to evade tax. *  Madras High Court stays GST recovery from directors without opportunity to show cause under section 89. *  Madras high court stays GST recovery notice against directors; finds prima facie case on applicability of section 79(1)(c). *  Procedural lapses can’t justify harsh punishment without serious customs breach: CESTAT quashes customs broker licence revocation. *  Service tax payable on land leasing and sports complex charges: CESTAT. *  Settled customs dispute can’t be reopened through Article 226 challenge to interest liability: Delhi High Court. *  Mere facilitation of customs clearance can’t establish knowledge of smuggling: Madras High Court. *  GST registration cancellation stayed: Allahabad High Court questions 99% ITC utilisation cap under rule 86B. *  Composition scheme lapses automatically on crossing Rs. 1.5 crore turnover: GSTAT. *  Gujarat High Court quashes GST cancellation orders after officer relied on non-existent AI-generated case laws. *  Importers liable for customs duty benefits availed through manipulated scrips: Delhi High Court. *  Procedural E-way bill lapse alone can’t justify penalty where genuine transaction and absence of tax evasion are established: GSTAT.
Subject News *  Documentary evidence dominates probe, further custody unwarranted: mumbai court grants bail in Rs. 22.44 crore customs duty evasion case. *  Business premises can’t remain sealed for non-participation in GST search: Allahabad High Court. *  GST pre-deposit must be refunded proportionately when taxpayer partly succeeds in appeal: Bombay High Court. *  Supreme Court grants 30 days to file GST appeal; keeps pre-deposit issue open due to deposit in parallel CGST proceedings. *  GST demand can’t exceed amount proposed in SCN: Allahabad High Court quashes Rs. 20.47 Crore order. *  Hundreds-of-crores GST demand and heavy 10% pre-deposit no ground to bypass statutory appeal: Punjab & Haryana High Court. *  Delhi High Court refuses to entertain challenge to gold confiscation due to statutory appeal remedy and unexplained delay. *  Procedural error in customs broker licence inquiry can be rectified through remand: Delhi High Court. *  GSTR-2A mismatch alone can’t justify ITC denial without invoice-wise verification; personal hearing mandatory: GSTAT. *  GST order passed without uploading personal hearing notices violates sec. 75(4): Allahabad High Court. *  TAX EVASION - Sec. 74 GST SCN quashed for not spelling out fraud, wilful misstatement or suppression: Allahabad High Court. *  STPI’s SOFTEX certification and NoC charges taxable as business support services: CESTAT. *  Suspicion can’t replace proof: CESTAT quashes penalty in alleged gold-smuggling operation. *   Limitation runs from communication of order: Madras High Court upholds rejection of delayed GST Appeals. *  Rajasthan High Court quashes GST demand over unsigned show cause notice. *  ITC recovery upheld where supplier failed to deposit GST: Rajasthan High Court. *  Customs commissioner’s empowered to make port trust liable for duty on pilfered goods: Supreme Court. *  Rectification proceedings can’t be used to challenge an uncontested GST assessment through a writ petition: Andhra Pradesh HC. *  GST proceedings against deceased proprietor unsustainable without notice to legal heir: GSTAT. *  Mere availment of ineligible self-assessed ITC doesn’t amount to suppression without evidence of fraud or wilful misstatement: GSTAT. *  Disposal of mining overburden by entity authorised by mining lease holder constitutes taxable service: CESTAT. *  Toll plaza data not mandatory for ITC refund: GSTAT. *  Disputed GST fraud allegations require investigation: Punjab and Haryana High Court makes interim bail absolute in alleged fraud and GST fraud case. *  Non-manufacturer contractor liable to deposit excess excise duty collected from buyer: CESTAT. *  GST order can’t reject taxpayer’s reply as “not satisfactory” without reasons: Madhya Pradesh High Court. *  Uncorroborated statements can’t establish alleged diversion of duty-free goods: CESTAT. *  Erection services were not liable to service tax prior to 10th september 2004: CESTAT. *  Sec. 74 GST notice must spell out statutory ingredients for invoking extended tax demand proceedings: Allahabad High Court. *  No jurisdictional bar under section 6(2)(b) in parallel CGST SGST proceedings: Delhi High Court refuses to bypass GST appeal remedy. *  Madras High Court remits GST demand for fresh adjudication after taxpayer claims it was unaware of SCN following business closure.  

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