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/2015-16/2652

Whether Cenvat of services taken of manpower agency for maintaining a health centre in manufacturing unit allowed?

Case:- BINANI CEMENT LTD. VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF C. EX. & S.T., JAIPUR-II

Citation:- 2015 (37) S.T.R. 1071 (Tri. - Del.)

 Brief facts:- The appellant were manufacture of cement and clinker chargeable to Central Excise duty. The period of dispute in this appeal was from March 2010 to December 2010. The appellant’s factory was located at Sirohi and they have a project office at Udaipur and their corporate office at Mumbai. In their factory at Sirohi they were required to maintain a medical centre which according to them was the requirement of Rajasthan Factories Rule 1951, Rule 65T of which provides that in respect of any factory carrying on hazardous process or dangerous operations and employing more than 500 workers, shall provide and maintain in good order an occupational health centre with services and facilities as laid down in this Rule. The cement industry was listed as hazardous industry in 1st Schedule to the Factories Act, 1948. Accordingly for maintaining the occupational health centre, the appellant had sourced the trained persons from manpower supply agents for deployment at their Sirohi factory. In respect of their project office at Udaipur and corporate office at Mumbai, they also received some trained personnel for procurement of inputs through manpower supply agents. In respect of the service received from the manpower supply agents they availed Cenvat credit of Rs. 3,15,302/- of the Service Tax paid on the same by the service providers. The Department was of the view that these services had no nexus with the manufacture of final product and the appellant was not eligible for Cenvat credit. On this basis the Jurisdictional Assistant Commissioner, Central Excise, vide order-in-original dated 3-11-2008 confirmed the above-mentioned Cenvat credit demand along with interest and beside this, imposed penalty of Rs. 50,000/- on them under Rule 15 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. On appeal being filed to Commissioner (Appeals) against this order, the Commissioner (Appeals) vide order-in-appeal dated 3-12-12 upheld the Assistant Commissioner’s order. Against this order of the Commissioner (Appeals), this appeal has been filed.

 Appellant’s contention:- Ms. Rinky Arora, Advocate, the learned Counsel for the appellant, pleaded that dispute is in respect of manpower supply service received in respect of the appellant’s Udaipur project office and corporate office at Mumbai, and in respect of medical centre being maintained at Sirohi factory, that for medical centre at the appellant’s factory at Sirohi, which is the requirement of Rule 65T of the Rajasthan Factories Rule, they had received trained personnel through manpower supply agents, that since maintenance of occupational health centre/medical centre at the factory manned by trained personnel was the requirement of Rajasthan Factories Rule, the services of receiving trained personnel for manning the health centre through manpower supply agents had to be treated as service in or in relation to the manufacture of the final product, as without maintenance of the health centre, the appellant would not be allowed to carry on their manufacturing activity, that as regards the manpower supply service in respect of Udaipur office and corporate office at Mumbai, as held by Assistant Commissioner in his order dated 3-1-2008 for the previous period, the service received is in relation to business of the assessee and eligible for Cenvat credit, that this portion of the Assistant Commissioner’s order had not been challenged by the Department, that when the Assistant Commissioner himself gave his finding that the services of manpower supply agency received at Udaipur office and corporate office at Mumbai was in relation to the business of the assessee, the same would be covered by the term “activity relating to business” in the definition of ‘input service’ and, hence, Cenvat credit in respect of these services would be available. With regard to the service received from manpower supply agency of receiving trained personnel for manning the occupational health centre at Sirohi factory, she pleaded that though Cenvat credit in respect of this service had earlier been disallowed by the Assistant Commissioner vide order-in-original dated 3-11-2008 and this order had been upheld by the Commissioner (Appeals), but the Commissioner (Appeals)’s order had been set aside by the Tribunal vide final order No. 1587/2012 - SM (BR) dated 16-11-2012. She, therefore, submitted in view of the above submissions, the impugned order was not correct.

Respondent’s contention:- Shri Yashpal Sharma, the learned DR, defended the impugned order by reiterating the findings of the Commissioner (Appeals).

Reasoning of judgment:- The commissioner considered the submissions from both the sides and perused the records. As regards the service of receiving trained personnel for manning the occupational health centre at Sirohi factory, it was seen that the appellant in terms of Rule 65T of the Rajasthan Factories Rules are required to maintain an occupational health centre as their employees are more than 500 and they carry out hazardous operations. Unless the appellant comply with this provision of the Rajasthan Factories Rules, they would not be allowed to carry on their manufacturing activity. Therefore, he held that the service of receiving trained medical personnel through manpower supply agency for maintaining the occupational health centre had to be treated as in or in relation to manufacture of final product and would be eligible for Cenvat credit as input service.

As regards the services of supply of trained manpower received through manpower supply agents at project office at Udaipur and corporate office at Mumbai, the Jurisdictional Assistant Commissioner in his order dated 3-11-2008 for the previous period had given a finding that these personnel recruited through manpower supply agents are used in connection with activities relating to business and, therefore, this service also has to be treated as covered by the definition of input service.

In view of the above discussion, the impugned order was not sustainable. The same is set aside. The appeal is allowed.

Decision:- Appeal allowed.

Comment:- The gist of this case is that as the assessee was statutorily required to maintain a health centre in their premises as per Rajasthan Factories Rules, the cenvat credit of service tax paid with respect to services availed for maintaining the said health centre will be admissible. Therefore, the service received of manpower (trained personnel) for maintaining health centre was held to be in relation to the manufacture of final product because it was necessary for carrying out manufacturing activities and hence credit is admissible.

Prepared by: Prayushi Jain

 

 

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