Chartered Accountant
Bookmark and Share
click here to subscribe our newsletter
 
 
Corporate News *  Missing seized records must be considered while testing ITC claim; duplicate GST demands ordered corrected: Delhi High Court. *  GST appeal can’t be rejected without addressing taxpayer’s grounds: Allahabad High Court. *  Surplus IGST credit can offset CGST, SGST shortfall: GSTAT. *  GST refund can’t be denied when cancelled airfares are returned with tax: GSTAT. *  3 Hearing notices issued within 2 minutes: Gujarat High Court flags portal flaw, seeks report. *  GSTR-9, GSTR-9C filing for FY 2025-26 enabled; pending GSTR-1 and GSTR-3B must be filed first. *  Dupattas are exempt fabrics, can’t be taxed as fibres at 4%: Madras High Court. *  Full transitional credit allowed on capital goods received after GST rollout: GSTAT denies Rs. 6.99 lakh export duty credit. *  GST return mismatch alone can’t justify fraud proceedings: GSTAT orders fresh adjudication under section 73. *  Supplier found non-existent later can’t alone justify input tax credit denial: GSTAT. *  GST interest stops once tax reaches government account, can’t run until return filing: GSTAT. *  Cancelled flat booking- GST refund can’t be denied without excluding COVID period from limitation: GSTAT. *  India notifies rules of origin for India–New Zealand FTA. *  Incomplete E-bike kits classifiable as complete vehicles, but not eligible for CKD duty concession: CESTAT. *  Same GST rate on main input and output can’t by itself bar inverted duty refund: GSTAT. *  Unjust enrichment doesn’t apply to customs refunds from assessments finalised before July 13, 2006: Gujarat High Court. *  CENVAT credit can’t be denied solely because plant And machinery are embedded in earth: Karnataka High Court. *  DFIA exports ineligible for RoDTEP benefits; customs directs repayment with applicable interest. *  Second E-Way bill alone doesn’t prove another supply: GSTAT. *  Bail denied in Rs. 1.19 crore fake GST refund case over risk of accused absconding again: Punjab and Haryana High Court. *  GST registration can be restored after revocation deadline if outstanding dues are paid: Gauhati High Court. *  Multiple GST proceedings over same suppliers: Calcutta High Court directs dept. to share findings for adjudication. *  E-Governance portal services not OIDAR, fixed deposit interest not taxable: CESTAT. *  Rs. 500 Stamp duty required on authority letters for CAs, CMA and GST practitioners in Pune GST division.  *  Rs. 1.10 crore GST refund must be paid in cash after business closure: Allahabad High Court. *  Godown rent attracts 18% GST even when used exclusively for exempt agricultural warehousing: AAR. *  GST portal launches "Multi-State Registration" facility: one master TRN for registration applications across multiple States/UTs. *  RoDTEP scheme extended till 31st December, 2026.  *  Mere disagreement with order can’t override Rs. 20 lakh appeal limit: GSTAT. *  Customs interest can’t be backdated before confiscation liability is determined; nearly 8 year period excluded: Delhi High Court.
Subject News *  GST summons: anticipatory bail maintainable without arrest order, but relief denied in evasion case: Allahabad High Court. *  GST Appeal can’t be decided without hearing taxpayer’s objections to fresh evidence: Allahabad High Court. *  GST ITC can’t be reversed merely because supplier grants discount without reducing tax liability: GSTAT. *  Mere quoting of GST provision is not a valid charge: GSTAT quashes ITC denial. *  Personal hearing mandatory before adverse GST order, even without taxpayer’s request: Rajasthan High Court. *  Parallel bail pleas without full disclosure amount to abuse of process Rs. 43.08 crore GST case sent for fresh hearing: Supreme Court. *  GST refund based on unchallenged advance ruling can’t be recovered using later circular: GSTAT. *  Payment of GST alone doesn’t end interest and penalty liability when tax and interest remain unpaid beyond 30 days of notice: GSTAT. *  GST demand over builders’ 80% procurement rule requires reasoned adjudication: GSTAT. *  Eligible ITC doesn’t automatically entitle taxpayers to compensation cess refund on domestic sales: GSTAT. *  GST confiscation order passed before reply deadline invalid: GSTAT. *  GST interest can’t be retained after tax refund on delayed export receipts: Punjab & Haryana High Court. *  GST appeal can’t be dismissed over pre-deposit shortfall without opportunity To respond: Bombay High Court. *  DGGI SCN can’t be challenged before reply and adjudication:Chhattisgarh High Court. *  GST input tax credit can’t be denied solely due to supplier’s retrospective registration cancellation: GSTAT. *  GST notice must explain fraud allegations; merely repeating section 74 Is not enough:  Himachal Pradesh High Court. *  Audit detection alone can’t justify GST fraud penalty; specific suppression must be proved: GSTAT. *  GST order uploaded only under ‘Additional Notices’ tab without separate intimation set aside: Calcutta High Court. *  Service Tax appeal can’t be rejected for missing pre-deposit proof when payment is already recorded: CESTAT. *  SGST dept. can’t hear appeal against CGST order: Calcutta High Court. *  Mere dispatch of tax order can’t prove service or make appeal time-barred: CESTAT. *  Dealer incentives can’t be taxed merely on ledger entries: CESTAT. *  DGFT orders quashed for failure to supply DRI letter relied upon in SCN: Bombay High Court. *  GST penalty u/s 122(1A) can’t apply to Pre-2021 transactions; unregistered beneficiaries also covered: Delhi High Court. *  Expired E-way bill caused by wrong PIN code can’t justify GST penalty without intent to evade tax: GSTAT. *  Used railway rails can’t be taxed as track material without proof they are fit for reuse: CESTAT. *  Earlier DGGI notice doesn’t bar separate GST demand on different issue: Delhi High Court. *  ITC dispute involves no question of law: GSTAT directs appeal to Vice-President. *  Earlier DGGI notice doesn’t bar separate GST demand On different issue: Delhi High Court. *  No E-way bill required for interstate goods movement in november 2017: GSTAT quashes detention and penalty.  

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