Chartered Accountant
Bookmark and Share
click here to subscribe our newsletter
 
 
Corporate News *  Dept. Can’t Classify Product as Zarda Scented Tobacco After Repeatedly Approving It As Chewing Tobacco: CESTAT *  Mere Uploading Of GST Order On Portal Is Not “Valid” Service: Tripura HC *  CGST Can Proceed Even If SGST Closed Similar Case Earlier: Delhi HC *  SC upholds 28% GST on online gaming with retrospective effect. *  West Bengal Govt cuts E-way Bill Threshold limit to Rs. 50,000 for intra-state goods movement. *  Criminal Prosecution Under Central Excise Act Can’t Continue After CESTAT Sets Aside Duty Demand on Merits: Punjab & Haryana High Court. *  Madras High Court Quashes GST Assessment Orders for Denial of Personal Hearing; Remands Matter Subject to 10% Deposit *  Ex Parte GST Order: Madras High Court Directs Immediate Removal of Bank/ITC Attachment Upon 25% Deposit *  J.K. Cement Receives GST Demand Order of Rs 8,02,113/- from Ahmedabad Tax Authority *  Delhi Police EOW Busts Alleged Rs. 128 Crore GST Fake Invoice Network. *  REPLY TO SCN CAN’T BE TREATED AS “EMPTY FORMALITY”: ORISSA HIGH COURT QUASHES GST DEMAND OF RS. 57.30 LAKH *  Challenge to CGST Provisions restricting ITC to Bonafide Purchasers : Allahabad HC issues notice *  CBIC Notifies Revised Customs Tariff Values for Edible Oils, Gold, Silver, Brass Scrap and Areca Nuts *  Delhi HC Orders Removal of GST Attachment After Statutory 1 Year Period Expired *  GSTAT Extends Relaxed Appeal Filing Guidelines till December 31, 2026 *  AO fails to Provide Import - Export Data from DGFT to Taxpayer for Reconciliation *  Gold, Silver Imports To Get Costlier As Govt Raises Customs Duty To 10%  *  GSTAT Enables Pre-Payment Access to Document Upload and Checklist for GST Appeal Filing *  GST Portal Restrictions Can’t Override Statute: Gujarat HC Allows Cross-State Transfer Of CGST ITC After Amalgamation *  Centre Revises HS Codes for Large Diameter Steel Pipes Used in Oil & Gas Pipelines *  Customs Duty Liability Arises On Warehouse Clearance Date: Supreme Court *  Government lifts export ban on de-oiled rice bran *  CESTAT Grants 12% Interest on Pre-Deposit for Investigation from Date of Deposit till Refund and Denies Interest on Interest. *  Government Overhauls GST Classification Framework for Non-Alcoholic Beverages; Fruit Juice Drinks, Milk-Based Beverages and Caffeinated Drinks to Attract Revised 5% and 40% GST Rates from May 1, 2026 *  India’s gross GST collections hit a record Rs 2.42 lakh crore in April, up 8.7% *  Customs clearance stalled, revenue hit over MRP dispute *  Shipping Corporation explores Middle East routes as Hormuz tensions disrupt cargo movement *  India, Kenya signs MoU for exchange of pre-arrival customs information *  No demand of Taxes under Reverse Charge if Tax Already Discharged by Service Provider under forward charge *  The India-New Zealand Free Trade Agreement, signed "once-in-a-generation" deal that eliminates tariffs on 100% of Indian exports to New Zealand
Subject News *  Consignment Sales Can’t Be Reclassified as Inter-State Sales Based on Pre-Agreement Evidence: CESTAT *  Exporter Can’t Be Denied Advance Authorization Benefit Due To ICEGATE Technical Glitch: Delhi High Court *  No GST Demand For Mere Wrong Set-Off Of IGST Credit Under CGST And SGST Heads: Kerala HC. *  Cenvat Credit Can’t Be Denied on Input Services Having Nexus With Manufacturing Activities: CESTAT *  Pending Proceedings Can’t Survive Without Saving Clause: Calcutta High Court Quashes GST Demand of Rs. 6.28 Crore After Omission of Rule 96(10) *  Madras HC Quashes GST Demands on TASMAC (Tamil Nadu State Marketing Corporation) Bar Licence Fee *  GST Proceedings Cannot Survive Omitted Rule Without Saving Clause: Calcutta HC *  Provisional Release Can’t Be Denied Solely On Dept. Suspicion Of Misclassification And Undervaluation Of Imported Goods: CESTAT *  Businesses Should Not Be Kept Outside GST Regime Without Due Process: Gauhati High Court *  Punjab & Haryana HC Directs Reconsideration of Contractors’ Claim for Additional GST Payment After Tax Rate Hike From 12% to 18% *  S. 108 Statements Can’t Be Sole Basis Without Following Section 138B Procedure: CESTAT *  Bombay High Court Frames Key Questions on Mandatory Distribution of ITC U/s 20 CGST Act *  Filing of Annexure-B for Refund Applications involving Accumulated ITC using the offline utility in GST portal: GSTN *  No Service Tax on Parent Company’s Un-Invoiced Cost Allocations Without Actual Service or Consideration: CESTAT  *  Calcutta High Court Upholds GST Classification of Polypropylene Leno Bags as Plastic Products *  DRC-01 Summary Can’t Replace Mandatory SCN: Gauhati High Court *  GSTAT Issues Major Bench Allocation Framework; All Appeals to First Go Before Division Bench *  ITC Blocking Without Reasoned Order Violates Rule 86A; Punjab & Haryana HC Directs Release of Credit *  Allahabad HC Refuses Bail to CGST Superintendent In Rs. 70 Lakh Bribery Case *  S.130 Can’t Be Invoked Without Prior Tax Determination U/s 73/74: Allahabad High Court Quashes GST Confiscation Proceedings *  SC grants Bail to Rs 54cr GST case  *  Karnataka HC Sets Aside Duplicate GST Orders, Orders Fresh Hearing on GSTIN Cancellation *  DRC-01 Summary Can’t Replace Mandatory SCN: Gauhati High Court *  Transfer Of Unutilized ITC After Amalgamation - Supreme Court Issues Notice *  PUNJAB & HARYANA HC QUASHES GST CANCELLATION NOTICE FOR FAILURE TO PROVIDE CBIC ENQUIRY REPORT *  LICENSE FEE, TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE CHARGES NOT INCLUDIBLE IN CUSTOMS VALUE UNLESS THEY ARE A CONDITION OF SALE: CESTAT *  DELHI HC ORDERS REMOVAL OF GST ATTACHMENT AFTER STATUTORY 1 YEAR PERIOD EXPIRED *  CUSTOMS BROKER CAN’T BE FAULTED JUST BECAUSE EXPORTER’S GST REGISTRATION WAS PREVIOUSLY CANCELLED: CESTAT   *  Supreme Court Dismisses Review Plea Against Delhi HC Ruling Holding Real Operator Behind Fake GST Firms Liable As ‘Taxable Person  *  GST Appeal Can’t Be Rejected Merely Because DRC-07 Was Not Uploaded On Portal: Bombay High Court  

Comments

Print   |    |  Comment

PJ/Case Law/2013-14/1862

Whether Cenvat credit is allowed on telephone installed at residences of the officials?

Case:-BHARAT PETROLEUM CORPORATION LTD. VERSUS COMMR. OF C. EX., MUMBAI-II

Citation:-2013(31) S.T.R. 455 (Tri.-Mumbai)

Brief Facts:-The appellant is in appeal against the impugned order wherein "input service" credit on telephone services which are installed at the residence of the officials of the appellant has been denied.

Appellant Contentions:-The appellant submits that the telephone ser­vices installed at their official residences are used for the business purpose of the appellant therefore, they are entitled for "input service" credit on these services. He heavily relied on the decision of the Hon'ble High Court of Bombay, in par­ticularly para 29, in the case of CCE, Nagpur v. Ultratech Cement Ltd. -2010(20) S.T.R. 577 (Bom.)=2010 (260) E.L.T. 369 (Bom.), which is reproduced herein be­low:‑
'The expression "activities in relation to business" in the definition of "in­put service" postulates activities which are integrally connected with the business of the assessee. If the activity is not integrally connected with the business of the manufacture of final product, the service would not qualify to be an input service under Rule 2(l) of the 2004 Rules."

The learned Advocate further relied on the decision in the case of Union of India v. HEG Ltd - 2011 (24) S.T.R. 275 (Chhattisgarh). In that case, the issue of telephones installed at the residence of the officials of the assessee­ company came before the Hon'ble High Court of Chhattisgarh wherein the view taken by the Tribunal 'that the appellant is entitled for "input service" credit on the telephone services which used in relation to business activities' has been up­held by the Hon'ble High Court. Therefore, he prayed that the impugned order be set aside and the appeal be allowed.
 
Respondent Contentions:-The Revenue strongly opposed the contention of the learned Advocate. The learned A.R. relied on the decision of Maruti Suzuki Ltd. v. C.C.E, Delhi-III - 2009 (240) E.L.T. 641 (S.C.)wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court held that inputs which have direct nexus with the manufacturing activity are entitled for credit and submits that in this case the telephone services installed at the residence of the officers have no nexus with the manufacturing activity of the appellant, therefore, credit should not be al­lowed. He further relied on para 29 of the decision of Ultratech Cement Ltd (supra) wherein it has been held that "'input service' should have direct nexus with the manufacturing activity. Therefore, he prayed that the impugned order be upheld.

Reasoning of Judgment:-We have considered the submission from both the sides and perused the record, we find that inasmuch as the issue has already been decided by the Hon’ble High Court of Bombay in the case of Ultratech Cement cited supra, particularly para 29 of the judgment, wherein the Hon'ble High Court of Bombay held that 'the expression "activities in relation to business" in the definition of input ser­vice postulates activities which are integrally connected with the business of the assessee.' The intention of the Hon’ble High Court is that a manufacturer of an Excisable goods can avail "input service" credit in the course of business of manufacturing activities. Therefore, the argument advanced by the learned AR. that it should have direct nexus to the manufacturing activity, is not correct. Fur­ther, in the case of Maruti Suzuki Ltd. (supra) the Hon’ble Apex Court dealt with the issue under Rule 2(k) of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 but there is no whisper at all with regard to "input service" as per Rule 2(l) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. Therefore, the decision of Maruti Suzuki Ltd. (supra) has no relevance to the facts of this case. Moreover, the decision of the Maruti Suzuki Ltd. (supra) which has been relied upon by the learned A.R. is jeopardy as the same is pending be­fore the Larger Bench of the Hon’ble Apex Court. Therefore, the Tribunal do not find any force in the argument advanced by the learned AR.

The Tribunal was convinced with the argument advanced by the learned Coun­sel for the appellant that the telephones installed at the residences of the officials which are integrally connected with the business ofthe manufacture of final product of the appellant and the same is covered under Ride 2(l) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004.

Accordingly, it was held that the appellant is entitled for "input service" credit on telephone services installed at the residence of the officials of the appel­lant. Therefore, the impugned order was set aside and the appeal was allowed with conse­quential relief, if any.
 
Decision:-Appeal allowed.
 
Comment:- The essence of this case is that credit is allowed on any service if the same is “ in relation to business” and is integrally connected with the business of the manufacture of the final product of the appellant. 

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