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 Laws/2012-13/1482

Whether Cenvat Credit allowable on Manpower supply service availed for plantation, maintenance of lawn ?


Case:- HINDUSTAN ZINC LTD. Versus COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, JAIPUR

Citation:-2013(288) E.L.T. 406 (Tri.-Del)

Brief Facts:- Assessee is engaged in manufacturer of zinc and other excisable goods. The dispute relates to whether they are eligible for Cenvat Credit of service tax paid on Manpower supply service availed for plantation, maintenance of lawn, etc. The department being of the view that this service is not covered by definition of ‘input service, issued show cause notice for recovery of allegedly wrongly availed cenvat credit along with interest and also imposition of penalty.

Appellant contention:- The appellant pleaded that the permission to operate zinc smelter plant has been given by Rajasthan State Pollution Control Board vide letter dated 29-01-2010 subject to certain condition ,one of which was that the 33%of total area of the factory premises shall be covered by tree plantation , that in the term of the condition subject to which permission to set up zinc smelter plant was given by Rajasthan State Pollution Control Board, the appellant were bound to have tree plantation in 33% of total area and in the event of failing to meet this requirement, the permission to operate zinc smelter plant was liable to be cancelled and in that view of these, the service in  question, availed by appellant is service used in or in relation to manufacturing of final product as appellant could not manufacture their final product without of availing of service, in the question, for maintenance of green cover. Appellant has pleaded that impugned order is not correct. Appellant also cited the judgment Hon’ble Andhra Pradesh High court in the case of ITC Ltd. reported as 2012 (TIOL) 199(AP) wherein it was held that service of the Manpower supply availed for plantation is eligible for Cenvat Credit. Appellant, therefore, pleaded that impugned order is not correct.   

Respondent contention:-Respondent supported impugned order by reiterating the finding of Commissioner (Appeals) and pleaded that the service in question has no nexus with manufacturing of final product and hence it is not cover under the definition of input service.   

Reasoning of Judgment:- We have considered the submission from both sides. The definition of ‘Input service ‘ as given in Rule 2(1) of Cenvat Credit Rules,2004 during the period of dispute covered the “service used by manufacturer where directly or indirectly in or in relation to manufacturing of final product and clearance of final product up to place of removal”. In my view expression would cover not only service which are directly manufacturing operation but would also covered the service which are indirectly essential for manufacturing operation like the service required for compliance with statutory provision. In these case permission given by Rajasthan State Pollution Control Board to appellant for operating zinc smelter plant, was subject to condition the appellant maintaining 33% of area as green cover tree plantation and on their failure to satisfy these condition, the permission granted was liable to be withdrawn. In this view, service received by appellant has to be treated as service compliance with necessary statutory provision subject to which manufacturing has been permitted. The service, in question, is therefore covered by definition of input service. Therefore the impugned order disallowing Cenvat Credit is not correct. The same is set aside. This appeal is allowed.   

Decision:-Appeal allowed.

Comment:-The substance of this case is that where a service is availed on account of some statutory obligation it is indirectly related to the ‘manufacture of final products’ and consequently covered under the definition of input service for the purpose of availing the credit.

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