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/2016-17/3197

Whether Cenvat credit can be availed by insurance company on tables and chairs procured by them for clients?

Case:-ICICI LOMBARD GENERAL INSURANCE CO.LTD.  VERSUS  COMMR. OF S.T.,MUMBAI-I

Citation:- 2016(42) S.T.R.938(Tri.-Mumbai)

Brief facts:- This appeal is directed against Order-in-Original No. 38/STV-I/SKS/11-12, dated 13-11-2011.
The relevant facts that arise for consideration are the appellant being in the business of general insurance were paying Service Tax on the services rendered by them and were availing benefit of Cenvat credit of service tax paid on the various input services as also on capital goods and inputs. Appellant availed the Cenvat credit of Central Excise duty paid on Furniture and Fittings during the period 2006-07, 2008-09 and also on the Service Tax paid by the canteen contractor. Revenue is of the view that they could not have availed Cenvat credit on Furniture and Fittings as they were not capital goods and on the “Outdoor Catering Services” it was not related to the services rendered by them which are taxable. Show cause notice was issued which was contested on merits as well as on limitation; after due process of law, the adjudicating authority confirmed the demands raised on the ineligibility of Cenvat credit on Furniture and Fittings and canteen services, along with interest and imposed penalties under various sections and rules.
 
Appellant’s contention:- Learned Chartered Accountant appearing on behalf of the appellant draws our attention to the facts of the case and the impugned order. It is his submission that Furniture and Fittings are required by the appellant for rendering the services of general insurance. It is his submission that the said Furniture and Fittings may not classify as capital goods but are definitely inputs. He would draw our attention to definition of inputs in Rule 2(k) of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004, (hereinafter referred to as rules). He would submit that the Cenvat credit on the canteen services as availed by the appellant is now confirmed by the Hon’ble High Court of Bombay in the case of Ultratech Cement - 2010-TIOL-745-HC-Mum = 2010 (20)S.T.R.577 (Bom.) = 2010 (260)E.L.T.369 (Bom.), holding that such credit is available. He would submit that as regards the Furniture and Fittings, the Tribunal in the case of Agarwal Foundries – 2015 (321)E.L.T.267 has held Cenvat as they are used for “any other purposes”. He would also draw our attention to C.B.E. & C. Circular No. 943/04/2011-CX, dated 29-4-2011 and specifically to point no. 3 in the said Circular.
 
Respondent’s contention:- Learned Departmental Representative on the other hand would emphasize that the appellant had availed the Cenvat credit on Furniture and Fittings holding them to be capital goods. He would submit that the said Furniture and Fittings do not classify as capital goods as per the definition in the rules, as they fall under different chapter and not those chapters which are treated as capital goods by the rules. He would submit that the ratio of judgment to the Tribunal in the case of Bharti Airtel Ltd. - 2012-TIOL-209-CESTAT-Mum = 2013 (29)S.T.R.401 (Tribunal) will apply which according to him is there has to be sufficient nexus between the inputs and input service, while in the case in hand is not forthcoming and the appellant had not evidenced that the Furniture and Fittings which have used for providing services. He would submit that the said Furniture and Fittings would become non-excisable goods accordingly, the Cenvat credit is not applicable.
On the Cenvat credit availed on catering services, he reiterates the findings of the adjudicating authority.
 
Reasoning of judgement:-The issue that needs to be decided in the case in hand is whether during the material period, appellant is eligible to avail Cenvat credit of the Excise Duty paid on Furniture and Fittings and the Service Tax paid on “outdoor catering services” or otherwise.
As regards the Cenvat credit of the Service Tax paid on catering services, the law is fairly settled by a judgment of Hon’ble High Court of Bombay in the case of Ultratech Cement (supra). The Hon’ble High Court has categorically stated that Cenvat credit can be availed on the Service Tax paid on the portion which is being paid by the canteen contractor. The Hon’ble High Court has also held that Service Tax paid on contribution or value of the canteen services enjoyed by the employees will not be available as Cenvat credit. In view of this, we hold that appellant is eligible to avail Cenvat credit to the extent of Service Tax paid by the canteen contractor and is not eligible to avail Cenvat credit of the Service Tax paid on the value of the services utilized by the employees of the appellant. Lower authorities are directed to reworkout the demand as per the judgment of Hon’ble High Court of Bombay and also recover interest at appropriate rate from the appellant.
As regards the Cenvat credit availed on the Furniture and Fittings, we find that the said furniture and fittings are nothing but tables and chairs which were procured by appellant during the relevant period. It is a common knowledge that any insurance company is required to have chairs and tables to render services to their clients. In our considered view, the said tables and chairs are used for rendering services of general insurance, accordingly, the appeal filed by the appellant on this issue needs to be allowed and we do so.
The reliance placed by the learned Departmental Representative on the judgment of Bharti Airtel (supra) will not carry their case any further, as we find in that case the Tribunal has recorded a clear findings that the appellant therein had not established that products were used for purpose of providing mobile telephone services, on the other hand, in the case before us, we find that the appellant has been taking a consistent plea that these tables and chairs are utilized for rendering the services as the employees need to sit and work on these tables and chairs.
In view of the foregoing, in the facts and circumstances of this case, we hold that the appellant is eligible to avail the Cenvat credit of Excise duty paid on Furniture and Fittings and also the Service Tax paid on canteen services as indicated herein above.
The impugned order to that extent which is contested before us is disposed of as indicated herein above.
 
Decision:-Appeal disposed of
 
Comment:-The analogy of the case is that CENVAT credit can be availed on tables and chairs procured by insurance company as they may not be capital goods but they are definitely inputs, as they are used to provide services to clients.

Prepared By:-Rakshay

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