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/2016-2017/3449

whether Cenvat credit on input services, such as, commissioning and installation, housekeeping services, air travel services and rent-a-cab services shall be allowed ?

Case-GODREJ & BOYCE MFG. CO. LTD. Versus COMMISSIONER OF C. EX., CHENNAI-II
 
Citation-  2017(48)S.T.R.88 ( Tri. –Chennai)

Brief Facts-The brief facts of the case are that the appellant-assessee are engaged in the manufacture of steel furniture falling under Chapter 94 of the Central Tariff Act, 1985. They have availed Cenvat credit for excise duty paid on inputs and capital goods and they have availed Cenvat credit of Service Tax paid on input services. The appellants were issued with the show cause notice dated 1-2-2013 requiring them to reverse the credit. The appellant has contended that these services are input services as per definition in Rule 2(l) of CCR and are eligible to avail credit of the services. The Additional Commissioner disallowed the credit on input services to the extent of Rs. 25,49,624/- as per the chart given under and also imposed penalty of Rs. 2,00,000/-.

S. No. Input Services Amount
1. Rent-a-cab Services Rs. 25,234/-
2. Air Travel Charges Rs. 18,389/-
3. CHA Services Rs. 4,69,500/-
4. Sweeping & Cleaning charges Rs. 2,36,285/-
5. Commissioning & Installation Rs. 18,000,216/-

the Learned Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the order of the adjudicating authority to the extent of Rs. 20,80,124/- and set aside the recovery of Cenvat credit on Customs House Agent Service to the extent of Rs. 4,69,500/- and also confirmed the penalty of Rs. 2,00,000/-.
 
Appellant’s Contention-Ld. Counsels Ms. V. Ubhaya Bharathi and Ms. Minchu Mariam Punnoose, appearing on behalf of the appellant submitted that the input services are essential for the assessee and the same are eligible for Cenvat credit. One service after the other was dealt with and they submitted that with respect to Commission and installation services, the very activity of manufacture of the final products would be complete only when the goods are installed in the premises of the customer and therefore without installation, manufacturing process would be incomplete and manufacture does not stop with emergence of the final product alone. Thus, commissioning and installation without which manufacturing activity would not get completed, squarely falls within the definition of “input service” and therefore, Service Tax paid on such services would be eligible for Cenvat credit and placed reliance upon the Order of the Additional Commissioner dated 7-7-2009 in their own case. They submitted that with respect to Housekeeping services, the appellants are under a statutory obligation prescribed under Section 11 of the Factories Act, 1948, to maintain the factory premises neat and clean and that expenditure incurred towards the same, when included in the value of the final product, credit on such services cannot be denied and placed reliance on the decision of the Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of Commissioner of C. Ex & ST, LTU Chennai v. Rane TRW Steering Systems Ltd. [2015 (39)S.T.R.13 (Mad.)] and the decision of this Hon’ble Court in the case of Hinduja Foundries Ltd. v. Commissioner of C. Ex, Chennai-I [2016 (42)S.T.R.494 (Tribunal)].
The ld. Counsels further submitted that with respect to air travel services, such services were employed only for the Company’s executives to travel in order to upgrade the technology and ensure uninterrupted production with a better quality. Such services were not employed for the employee’s personal needs. Therefore Service Tax paid on such services would be eligible to the appellants as Cenvat credit and placed reliance on the decision of this Hon’ble Tribunal in the case of Arkema Paroxides India Pvt. Ltd. v. CCE, Pondicherry; Goodluck Steel Tubes Ltd. v. Commissioner of C. Ex, Noida [2013 (32)S.T.R.123 (Tribunal)] and Innovasynth Technologies (I) Ltd. v. CCE, Raigad [2015 (38)S.T.R.1232 (Tribunal)]. They submitted that with respect to Rent-a-cab services, such services were used for transportation of their employees from the factory to the customer’s premises for the purpose of installation of the final products at the customer’s premises and placed reliance on the decision of this Hon’ble Tribunal in the case of BSNL v. CST Chennai-II and the decision of the Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of CCE, Chennai-II Commissionerate v. Hyderabad Industries Ltd.
 
Respondent’s Contention-The ld. AR Shri S. Govindarajan, A. C. submitted that such input services in order to be eligible for credit must have nexus with the manufacture of final product and all the parts of the definition should be satisfied so as that input services becomes an eligible input.
 
Reasoning Of Judgement-Heard both sides On going through the appeal records, tribunal find that expenses incurred on services at the factory premises of the appellant-assessee are eligible as input service. As regards the service of commissioning and installation, the said services are employed only to install the final product at the premises of the customer and only upon such installation, the final product would become operational and purpose of manufacture would fructify. Therefore, the submission of the learned Counsel for the appellant cannot be faulted with and the order of the learned Additional Commissioner in appellant’s own case whereby the learned adjudicating authority has allowed the credit on Commissioning and installation services also strengthens their case.
Regarding Housekeeping services, tribunal find that the said services are employed by the appellants only in compliance of Environmental laws and in particular the Factories Act, 1948, and when money is spent for the purposes of maintaining the factory premises clean and tidy, and the same is includible in the value of the final product, following the decision of the Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of C. Ex & ST, LTU Chennai v. Rane TRW Steering Systems - 2015 (39)S.T.R.13 (Mad.) as well as decision in the case of - Hinduja Foundries Ltd. v. CCE, Chennai-I - 2016 (42)S.T.R.494 (Tri.-Chennai), tribunal hold that credit of Service Tax paid on such services cannot be denied.
As regards Air travel services, when it is not in dispute that the said services were employed only for the company’s executives to travel to achieve the business objective and the same has not been used for the employee’s personal needs, credit of Service Tax paid on such services cannot be denied in view of the decision in the cases of Arkema Paroxides India Pvt. Ltd. v. CCE, Pondicherry - 2016-TIOL-1353-CESTAT-MAD, Goodluck Steel Tubes Ltd. v. Commissioner of C. Ex, Noida - 2013 (32)S.T.R.123 (Tri.-Del.) and Innovasynth Technologies (I) Ltd. v. CCE, Raigad - 2015 (38)S.T.R.1232 (Tri.-Mum.).
With respect to Rent-a-cab service, the Counsels for the appellant submitted that such services are employed only for the employees to travel to the customer’s site in order to install the goods and without such installation, the product cannot be functional and such services are not used for the personal consumption of the employees. tribunal find that, the nature of the business of the appellants is such that employees need to travel to the customer’s site to install the products and only on such installation the products would become operational. The very purpose of manufacture of such products is only to benefit the customer for whom it is made and that being the case, cab operator’s services used for the transport of employees to the customer’s site is an integral part to the manufacture of the final products and credit on the same cannot be denied. By respectfully following the ratio laid down by the Hon’ble High Courts as mentioned above,  tribunal allow the assessees appeal in respect of Cenvat credit on input services, such as, commissioning and installation, housekeeping services, air travel services and rent-a-cab services. The penalty is also set aside.
 
Decision- appeal allowed

Comment-The essence of the case is thatCenvat credit on Input service such as Commissioning and Installation services used for installing final product at customer’s premises, eligible to input service credit inasmuch as without such installation product would not be operational. Cenvat credit on Input service such as Housekeeping services availed for maintaining factory premises clean in factory and value of such services included in value of final product. Cenvat credit on Input service such Air Travel services utilized by company’sthatexecutives in relation to business activity and not in their personal needs.Cenvat credit on Input service such as Rent-a-Cab service availed for visiting customer’s site for installation of final product is an integral part of manufacture. Hence,Cenvat credit on input services ,such as, commissioning and installation, housekeeping services, air travel services and rent-a-cab services shall be allowed.
 
Prepared by –  Pushpa choudhary

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