Chartered Accountant
Bookmark and Share
click here to subscribe our newsletter
 
 
Corporate News *  GST registration cancellation without reasons amounts to ‘Economic Death’ of business: Supreme Court. *  No GST refund if appeal before GSTAT is filed late: Gujarat High Court. *  Mere upload of GST notice on portal not valid service, appeal limitation won’t start: Punjab & Haryana High Court. *  Taxpayer can’t be penalised for missing notices hidden under ‘Additional Notices/Orders’: Calcutta High Court allows fresh adjudication. *  State tax officer can’t issue GST SCN beyond CBIC-assigned jurisdiction: Bombay High Court stays recovery proceedings. *  Earlier 7.5% Pre-Deposit must count towards mandatory 10% for Appeal: Uttarakhand high court quashes CESTAT Order. *  Third Parties can’t challenge GST Advance Rulings merely due to financial impact: Karnataka HC *  GST SCN generated using AI tool quashed: Punjab & Haryana High Court *  Bank Attachment Quashed as Madras HC Quashes GST Order Issued Against Deceased Person *  ITC Blocking Order for Failure to Record ‘Reason to Believe’ U/R 86A Quashed: Allahabad High Court *  Govt Extends GSTAT Appeal Filing Deadline From 30 June to July 31, 2026 *  GST Demand on RWA Stayed: Allahabad High Court Questions Taxability of Electricity Distribution to Flat Owners *  CBIC Clarifies Jurisdiction After GST Registration Transfer: Earlier Proceedings Remain Valid, New Officer to Continue Action *  GST authorities’ certification not mandatory for reimbursement, but tax payment must be proven: Karnataka HC *  Contractor can’t seek gst reimbursement through writ when contract has arbitration clause: Karnataka HC *  Unsigned Order Is No Order in Law: AP HC Quashes GST Assessment Order for Want of Officer’s Signature *  Customs Can’t Levy Rs. 1.36 Crore Cost Recovery Charges Without Proof of Full-Day Officer Deployment: CESTAT  *  12% IGST Payable On Imported Dialysis Machine Parts: CESTAT *  Bombay High Court Admits Challenge to GST Limitation Extension Notifications; Grants Protection Against Coercive Recovery *  Criminal Case Can’t Run Parallel to GST Proceedings on Same Facts: Allahabad High Court *  Allahabad High Court Stays GST Detention Order; Directs Release of Vehicle and Goods on Deposit of Rs. 1.44 Lakh *  Service Tax Can’t Be Levied on Loss-Making Contracts: Gujarat High Court *  GSTN Mandates Ship-to GSTIN in e-Invoice and e-Way Bill APIs; Introduces Voluntary e-Way Bill Closure Facility from August 1, 2026 *  GST Appeal Can’t Be Rejected as Time-Barred When Taxpayer Was Pursuing Rectification Remedy: Telangana High Court *  Absence of E-Way Bill and Transport Documents Justifies Customs Seizure U/s 110: Gauhati HC *  Madras High Court Upholds GST Late Fee and Penalty for Non-Filing of Annual Return, Dismisses Challenge  *  GST Records, Purchase Documents Sufficient to Discharge Burden Under Customs Act: CESTAT Orders Release of 3.65 Kg Gold  *  No Sugar Cess Payable on Sugar Exported Out of India: CESTAT *  Road Construction Services Exempt and SCN Time-Barred: CESTAT Quashes Service Tax Demand Based Solely on Form 26AS  *  ITC Freeze Upheld After GST Dept Find Suppliers Were Allegedly Fake Bill-Trading Entities: Madras HC 
Subject News *  Input service benefits can’t be denied: CESTAT allows export refund despite MMTC acting as Canalising agency. *  No service tax demand without proof of service of SCN: CESTAT. *  Service tax demand quashed as dept. fails to prove service of SCN: CESTAT *  GST : Mere allegation of inadequate consideration of reply not enough to invoke writ jurisdiction: Delhi High Court *  Onerous conditions imposed for provisional release of seized imported goods shouldn’t amount to virtual denial of relief: CESTAT. *  GST SCN without alleging fraud cannot invoke sec. 74: Karnataka High Court quashes adjudication order. *  Extended Limitation Can’t Be Invoked Merely on Form 26AS Data: CESTAT *  Revenue-Sharing with Restaurants Not Taxable as Business Support Service: CESTAT *  R. 6(3) Option Can’t Be Forced on Taxpayer; CESTAT Quashes Rs. 12.36 Crore CENVAT Credit Demand *  Excise Duty | Power Consumption Alone Can’t Prove Clandestine Manufacture: Karnataka High Court *  Madras High Court Examines DGGI’s Authority to Issue GST Penalty Orders Under Section 122, Adds DGGI as Party *  Proceedings under omitted r. 96(10) can’t survive without saving clause: andhra pradesh high court quashes gst refund recovery *  Excise duty power consumption alone can’t prove clandestine manufacture: karnataka high court *  Madras high court rules GST show cause notices must disclose grounds for invoking extended limitation *  Court Can’t Direct Extension GST Return Deadlines or Waive Interest and Penalties: Karnataka High Court *  GST Notifications Can’t Go Beyond GST Council Recommendations: Madras High Court Quashes SCN on Branded Pulses *  Appeal Can’t Be Dismissed for Delay When Dept’s Own Order Mis-states Limitation Period: CESTAT *  No Evidence of KYC or Due Diligence Breach By Customs Broker: CESTAT Quashes Licence Revocation in Export Overvaluation Case *  Glucometers Are Chemical Analysis Instruments Classifiable Under Tariff Heading 9027: CESTAT *  Validity of Post-GST Service Tax Proceedings Upheld: Gujarat High Court Dismisses Challenge to S. 73 SCN *  Rectified GST Refund Applications Can’t Be Rejected as Time-Barred If Original Refund Claim Was Filed Within Limitation: Gujarat HC *  Service Tax Refund Can’t Be Denied as Time-Barred When Levy Itself Is Unconstitutional: Gujarat High Court *  Same Officer Can’t Act As Auditor & Adjudicator: Karnataka High Court *  Karnataka High Court Condones 324-Day Delay, Revives Customs Appeal in Jewellery Pilferage Case  *  Madras High Court Quashes GST Assessment Order Passed Ex Parte Despite Prior ITC Reversal; Lifts Bank Attachment *  Tobacco Process Doesn’t Amount to Manufacturing: Madras High Court Quashes Rs. 1.32 Crore Compensation Cess Demand  *  Recovery Notice Unsustainable After Voluntary Reversal of Unutilised Credit: CESTAT  *  GST | ‘System Generated’ SCN Without Officer Details Invalid: Allahabad HC  *  Electronic Records Without Statutory Certification Requirements Can’t Justify Undervaluation Allegations: CESTAT *  Madras High Court Stays GST Order, Finds Prima Facie Merit in Plea Against S. 74 Proceedings Based on S. 73 Intimation  

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