Chartered Accountant
Bookmark and Share
click here to subscribe our newsletter
 
 
Corporate News *  The GSTN has issued an Advisory dated 21.04.2026 about the introduction of an Offline Tool for the Invoice Management System (IMS)  *  CBIC extends due dates for filing of FORM GSTR 3B  for the month of April 2026 *  Interest cannot be imposed in adjudication order, if not demanded/quantified in show cause notice : Allahabad HC *  Wheelchairs with toileting facility eligible for exemption: CESTAT affirms customs duty exemption to importer *  Industries urge GST council to allow inverted duty refunds on input services *  Tamil Nadu GST dept introduced virtual hearing facility for GST appeals under under section 107 of the TNGST act: detailed guidelines  *  CIC urges authorities to implement GST evasion complaint tracking system *  Even if the assessee opts "NO" for personal hearing in form DRC-06 ,The mandatory requirement under section 75(4) to grant opportunity of hearing cannot be waived:Gujarat High Court  *  Glufosinate imports curbs imposed by govt *  Government extends Re-import period for exported cut & polished diamonds *  CIC flags lack of tracking system for tax evasion complaints,urges GST authorities to improve transparency *  No Custodial Interrogation needed in GST fraud case based on documentary evidence already in Department's Possession : Chattisgarh HC *  Orders under section cannot be sustained if passed without considering the taxpayer's objections and without granting a personal hearing:Gujarat High Court *  Mere cancellation of supplier's registration cannot,by itself,justify denial of ITC or cancellation of the recipient's registration:Bombay High Court *  High Court sets aside GST notice citing factual errors and natural justice violations *  Provisional Bank Attachment under Section. 110 of Customs Act Unsustainable Beyond Statutory period without Extension order: Bombay HC orders to defreeze accounts *  Post Clearance MRP Alteration by Distributor Does not attract Differential Customs Duty: CESTAT *  DGFT Expands scope of 'Screws' classification under RoDTEP Scheme  *  E-way bills surze to all time high of 140.6 million in March *  GST Exemption Allowed on Pure Labour Services for Standalone Houses: AAR  *  GST Payable Only on Margin in Second-Hand Car Sales, Subject to Strict Conditions and No ITC Claim: AAR *  DGFT rolls out procedure for allocation of calcined coke *  GST portal update : Pre-deposit amount now editable in Appeals *  J&K HC declared TMT scrap a 'Specified Good' eligibile for GST refunds under Support Scheme  *  Pigmy agents are employees of banks; no GST can be levied on commission  paid to them : Karnataka HC *  DGFT Revises HS Code Description for Screws Under RoDTEP *  GST Registration Cancellation Invalid Without Proper Service of Notice: Allahabad High Court. *  Bengaluru CGST | GST Backlog Appeals Deadline Fixed at June 30, 2026 *  No Time Bar on Refund of Service Tax for Services Not Rendered: CESTAT  Remands Indiabulls Case for Unjust Enrichment Check. *  Supreme Court Holds Renewable Energy Incentive Must Benefit Generators, Not Be Adjusted in Tariff
Subject News *   Delhi HC Quashes Order, Says Reminder Cannot Validate Improperly Served GST SCN *  KARNATAKA HIGH COURT REMANDS GST SHORTFALL MATTER DUE TO ABSENCE OF PERSONAL HEARING   *  CESTAT cancels confiscation and penalties on imported computer cabinet cases: Custom duty restricted to 111 surplus units *  Deposit of tax during search or investigation cannot be treated as 'Voluntary Payment' : Bombay High Court *  Section 76 of the CGST cannot be invoked where the tax has already been duly deposited, even if through another registration of the same entity: Madras High Court *  Sec 74 allows use of material regardless of source; illegality or flaws in section 67 search do not vitiate valid adjudication: HC *  Inter-State transfer of ITC on Amalgamation permissible as given under section 18(3) read with rule 41 of the CGST rules, 2017: Gujarat High Court *  HC: No GST on commisson paid to Pigmy Agents *  IGST refund denial on illegible bill of lading invalid absent chance to furnish docs; merit reconsideration in appeals directed: HC *  ITC is not admissible on GST paid on leasehold rights of land used fpr setting up an air seperation plant: AAAR,Tamil Nadu *  GST: No penalty under Section 74 after voluntary ITC reversal due to non-existent supplier : High Court *  TN AAAR denies GST ITC on Land Lease under Sec. 17(5)(d) for setting up plant and machinery *  GST proceedings quashed as notices sent to old address, despite updated address in registration *  Importer Can’t Be Penalised for Alleged IGCR Procedural Lapses Without Evidence of Departmental Error: CESTAT *  Structured Healthcare Training Not ‘Charitable Activity’, 18% GST Payable: AAR  *  CESTAT As The Appellate Authority For Central Sales Tax Disputes: A Paradigm Shift Under Finance Act, 2023 *   Rs. 25K Cost Imposed On SGST Joint Commissioner for Attaching Bank  Accounts Without Forming Mandatory “Opinion”: Bombay HC *   Ex-Parte GST Order Without Hearing Violates Natural Justice: Karnataka  High Court Quashes Adjudication and Bank Attachment.  *   Retrospective GST Cancellation Can’t Invalidate Genuine Transactions:  Jaipur Commissioner (Appeals) Quashes Rs. 95,670 ITC Demand. *   GST Pre-Deposit Non-Compliance: Allahabad High Court Allows Appeal  Subject to Rs. 30 Lakh Balance Deposit, Recognises Offline Filing. *  Documentary Nature of Evidence: Allahabad High Court Grants Bail in Rs. 32.66 Crore Fake ITC Fraud Case *  Supreme Court Flags Systemic Bias in Army’s Permanent Commission Process for Women Officers *  Re-Determination of Land Compensation Can Be Based on Appellate Court Awards, Clarifies Scope of S. 28-A: Supreme Court. *  Supreme Court Imposes Rs. 5 Lakh Costs On Rent Authority Officer For Acting Beyond Jurisdiction. *  DGGI Meerut | Court Denies Bail to Accused in Claiming Fake ITC And Export Refunds *  Denial of GST Rate Revision Benefit to Contractor Violates Article 14: Rajasthan HC *  GST Registration Cancellation for Non-Filing of Returns: Gauhati High Court Directs Restoration on Compliance. *   Supreme Court Quashes FEMA Adjudication Orders, Revives Proceedings at  Show Cause Stage. *   Higher Rank, Harsher Punishment Justified: Supreme Court Restores Dismissal  of Bank Manager in Misappropriation Case. *   Limitation for Export Refund to Be Counted from Foreign Exchange Realisation,  Not From Export Invoices Issuance: CESTAT  

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