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/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