Chartered Accountant
Bookmark and Share
click here to subscribe our newsletter
 
 
Corporate News *  GST registration cancellation without reasons amounts to ‘Economic Death’ of business: Supreme Court. *  No GST refund if appeal before GSTAT is filed late: Gujarat High Court. *  Mere upload of GST notice on portal not valid service, appeal limitation won’t start: Punjab & Haryana High Court. *  Taxpayer can’t be penalised for missing notices hidden under ‘Additional Notices/Orders’: Calcutta High Court allows fresh adjudication. *  State tax officer can’t issue GST SCN beyond CBIC-assigned jurisdiction: Bombay High Court stays recovery proceedings. *  Earlier 7.5% Pre-Deposit must count towards mandatory 10% for Appeal: Uttarakhand high court quashes CESTAT Order. *  Third Parties can’t challenge GST Advance Rulings merely due to financial impact: Karnataka HC *  GST SCN generated using AI tool quashed: Punjab & Haryana High Court *  Bank Attachment Quashed as Madras HC Quashes GST Order Issued Against Deceased Person *  ITC Blocking Order for Failure to Record ‘Reason to Believe’ U/R 86A Quashed: Allahabad High Court *  Govt Extends GSTAT Appeal Filing Deadline From 30 June to July 31, 2026 *  GST Demand on RWA Stayed: Allahabad High Court Questions Taxability of Electricity Distribution to Flat Owners *  CBIC Clarifies Jurisdiction After GST Registration Transfer: Earlier Proceedings Remain Valid, New Officer to Continue Action *  GST authorities’ certification not mandatory for reimbursement, but tax payment must be proven: Karnataka HC *  Contractor can’t seek gst reimbursement through writ when contract has arbitration clause: Karnataka HC *  Unsigned Order Is No Order in Law: AP HC Quashes GST Assessment Order for Want of Officer’s Signature *  Customs Can’t Levy Rs. 1.36 Crore Cost Recovery Charges Without Proof of Full-Day Officer Deployment: CESTAT  *  12% IGST Payable On Imported Dialysis Machine Parts: CESTAT *  Bombay High Court Admits Challenge to GST Limitation Extension Notifications; Grants Protection Against Coercive Recovery *  Criminal Case Can’t Run Parallel to GST Proceedings on Same Facts: Allahabad High Court *  Allahabad High Court Stays GST Detention Order; Directs Release of Vehicle and Goods on Deposit of Rs. 1.44 Lakh *  Service Tax Can’t Be Levied on Loss-Making Contracts: Gujarat High Court *  GSTN Mandates Ship-to GSTIN in e-Invoice and e-Way Bill APIs; Introduces Voluntary e-Way Bill Closure Facility from August 1, 2026 *  GST Appeal Can’t Be Rejected as Time-Barred When Taxpayer Was Pursuing Rectification Remedy: Telangana High Court *  Absence of E-Way Bill and Transport Documents Justifies Customs Seizure U/s 110: Gauhati HC *  Madras High Court Upholds GST Late Fee and Penalty for Non-Filing of Annual Return, Dismisses Challenge  *  GST Records, Purchase Documents Sufficient to Discharge Burden Under Customs Act: CESTAT Orders Release of 3.65 Kg Gold  *  No Sugar Cess Payable on Sugar Exported Out of India: CESTAT *  Road Construction Services Exempt and SCN Time-Barred: CESTAT Quashes Service Tax Demand Based Solely on Form 26AS  *  ITC Freeze Upheld After GST Dept Find Suppliers Were Allegedly Fake Bill-Trading Entities: Madras HC 
Subject News *  Input service benefits can’t be denied: CESTAT allows export refund despite MMTC acting as Canalising agency. *  No service tax demand without proof of service of SCN: CESTAT. *  Service tax demand quashed as dept. fails to prove service of SCN: CESTAT *  GST : Mere allegation of inadequate consideration of reply not enough to invoke writ jurisdiction: Delhi High Court *  Onerous conditions imposed for provisional release of seized imported goods shouldn’t amount to virtual denial of relief: CESTAT. *  GST SCN without alleging fraud cannot invoke sec. 74: Karnataka High Court quashes adjudication order. *  Extended Limitation Can’t Be Invoked Merely on Form 26AS Data: CESTAT *  Revenue-Sharing with Restaurants Not Taxable as Business Support Service: CESTAT *  R. 6(3) Option Can’t Be Forced on Taxpayer; CESTAT Quashes Rs. 12.36 Crore CENVAT Credit Demand *  Excise Duty | Power Consumption Alone Can’t Prove Clandestine Manufacture: Karnataka High Court *  Madras High Court Examines DGGI’s Authority to Issue GST Penalty Orders Under Section 122, Adds DGGI as Party *  Proceedings under omitted r. 96(10) can’t survive without saving clause: andhra pradesh high court quashes gst refund recovery *  Excise duty power consumption alone can’t prove clandestine manufacture: karnataka high court *  Madras high court rules GST show cause notices must disclose grounds for invoking extended limitation *  Court Can’t Direct Extension GST Return Deadlines or Waive Interest and Penalties: Karnataka High Court *  GST Notifications Can’t Go Beyond GST Council Recommendations: Madras High Court Quashes SCN on Branded Pulses *  Appeal Can’t Be Dismissed for Delay When Dept’s Own Order Mis-states Limitation Period: CESTAT *  No Evidence of KYC or Due Diligence Breach By Customs Broker: CESTAT Quashes Licence Revocation in Export Overvaluation Case *  Glucometers Are Chemical Analysis Instruments Classifiable Under Tariff Heading 9027: CESTAT *  Validity of Post-GST Service Tax Proceedings Upheld: Gujarat High Court Dismisses Challenge to S. 73 SCN *  Rectified GST Refund Applications Can’t Be Rejected as Time-Barred If Original Refund Claim Was Filed Within Limitation: Gujarat HC *  Service Tax Refund Can’t Be Denied as Time-Barred When Levy Itself Is Unconstitutional: Gujarat High Court *  Same Officer Can’t Act As Auditor & Adjudicator: Karnataka High Court *  Karnataka High Court Condones 324-Day Delay, Revives Customs Appeal in Jewellery Pilferage Case  *  Madras High Court Quashes GST Assessment Order Passed Ex Parte Despite Prior ITC Reversal; Lifts Bank Attachment *  Tobacco Process Doesn’t Amount to Manufacturing: Madras High Court Quashes Rs. 1.32 Crore Compensation Cess Demand  *  Recovery Notice Unsustainable After Voluntary Reversal of Unutilised Credit: CESTAT  *  GST | ‘System Generated’ SCN Without Officer Details Invalid: Allahabad HC  *  Electronic Records Without Statutory Certification Requirements Can’t Justify Undervaluation Allegations: CESTAT *  Madras High Court Stays GST Order, Finds Prima Facie Merit in Plea Against S. 74 Proceedings Based on S. 73 Intimation  

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