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/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