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/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