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/2016-2017/3449

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