Chartered Accountant
Bookmark and Share
click here to subscribe our newsletter
 
 
Corporate News *  The GSTN has issued an Advisory dated 21.04.2026 about the introduction of an Offline Tool for the Invoice Management System (IMS)  *  CBIC extends due dates for filing of FORM GSTR 3B  for the month of April 2026 *  Interest cannot be imposed in adjudication order, if not demanded/quantified in show cause notice : Allahabad HC *  Wheelchairs with toileting facility eligible for exemption: CESTAT affirms customs duty exemption to importer *  Industries urge GST council to allow inverted duty refunds on input services *  Tamil Nadu GST dept introduced virtual hearing facility for GST appeals under under section 107 of the TNGST act: detailed guidelines  *  CIC urges authorities to implement GST evasion complaint tracking system *  Even if the assessee opts "NO" for personal hearing in form DRC-06 ,The mandatory requirement under section 75(4) to grant opportunity of hearing cannot be waived:Gujarat High Court  *  Glufosinate imports curbs imposed by govt *  Government extends Re-import period for exported cut & polished diamonds *  CIC flags lack of tracking system for tax evasion complaints,urges GST authorities to improve transparency *  No Custodial Interrogation needed in GST fraud case based on documentary evidence already in Department's Possession : Chattisgarh HC *  Orders under section cannot be sustained if passed without considering the taxpayer's objections and without granting a personal hearing:Gujarat High Court *  Mere cancellation of supplier's registration cannot,by itself,justify denial of ITC or cancellation of the recipient's registration:Bombay High Court *  High Court sets aside GST notice citing factual errors and natural justice violations *  Provisional Bank Attachment under Section. 110 of Customs Act Unsustainable Beyond Statutory period without Extension order: Bombay HC orders to defreeze accounts *  Post Clearance MRP Alteration by Distributor Does not attract Differential Customs Duty: CESTAT *  DGFT Expands scope of 'Screws' classification under RoDTEP Scheme  *  E-way bills surze to all time high of 140.6 million in March *  GST Exemption Allowed on Pure Labour Services for Standalone Houses: AAR  *  GST Payable Only on Margin in Second-Hand Car Sales, Subject to Strict Conditions and No ITC Claim: AAR *  DGFT rolls out procedure for allocation of calcined coke *  GST portal update : Pre-deposit amount now editable in Appeals *  J&K HC declared TMT scrap a 'Specified Good' eligibile for GST refunds under Support Scheme  *  Pigmy agents are employees of banks; no GST can be levied on commission  paid to them : Karnataka HC *  DGFT Revises HS Code Description for Screws Under RoDTEP *  GST Registration Cancellation Invalid Without Proper Service of Notice: Allahabad High Court. *  Bengaluru CGST | GST Backlog Appeals Deadline Fixed at June 30, 2026 *  No Time Bar on Refund of Service Tax for Services Not Rendered: CESTAT  Remands Indiabulls Case for Unjust Enrichment Check. *  Supreme Court Holds Renewable Energy Incentive Must Benefit Generators, Not Be Adjusted in Tariff
Subject News *   Delhi HC Quashes Order, Says Reminder Cannot Validate Improperly Served GST SCN *  KARNATAKA HIGH COURT REMANDS GST SHORTFALL MATTER DUE TO ABSENCE OF PERSONAL HEARING   *  CESTAT cancels confiscation and penalties on imported computer cabinet cases: Custom duty restricted to 111 surplus units *  Deposit of tax during search or investigation cannot be treated as 'Voluntary Payment' : Bombay High Court *  Section 76 of the CGST cannot be invoked where the tax has already been duly deposited, even if through another registration of the same entity: Madras High Court *  Sec 74 allows use of material regardless of source; illegality or flaws in section 67 search do not vitiate valid adjudication: HC *  Inter-State transfer of ITC on Amalgamation permissible as given under section 18(3) read with rule 41 of the CGST rules, 2017: Gujarat High Court *  HC: No GST on commisson paid to Pigmy Agents *  IGST refund denial on illegible bill of lading invalid absent chance to furnish docs; merit reconsideration in appeals directed: HC *  ITC is not admissible on GST paid on leasehold rights of land used fpr setting up an air seperation plant: AAAR,Tamil Nadu *  GST: No penalty under Section 74 after voluntary ITC reversal due to non-existent supplier : High Court *  TN AAAR denies GST ITC on Land Lease under Sec. 17(5)(d) for setting up plant and machinery *  GST proceedings quashed as notices sent to old address, despite updated address in registration *  Importer Can’t Be Penalised for Alleged IGCR Procedural Lapses Without Evidence of Departmental Error: CESTAT *  Structured Healthcare Training Not ‘Charitable Activity’, 18% GST Payable: AAR  *  CESTAT As The Appellate Authority For Central Sales Tax Disputes: A Paradigm Shift Under Finance Act, 2023 *   Rs. 25K Cost Imposed On SGST Joint Commissioner for Attaching Bank  Accounts Without Forming Mandatory “Opinion”: Bombay HC *   Ex-Parte GST Order Without Hearing Violates Natural Justice: Karnataka  High Court Quashes Adjudication and Bank Attachment.  *   Retrospective GST Cancellation Can’t Invalidate Genuine Transactions:  Jaipur Commissioner (Appeals) Quashes Rs. 95,670 ITC Demand. *   GST Pre-Deposit Non-Compliance: Allahabad High Court Allows Appeal  Subject to Rs. 30 Lakh Balance Deposit, Recognises Offline Filing. *  Documentary Nature of Evidence: Allahabad High Court Grants Bail in Rs. 32.66 Crore Fake ITC Fraud Case *  Supreme Court Flags Systemic Bias in Army’s Permanent Commission Process for Women Officers *  Re-Determination of Land Compensation Can Be Based on Appellate Court Awards, Clarifies Scope of S. 28-A: Supreme Court. *  Supreme Court Imposes Rs. 5 Lakh Costs On Rent Authority Officer For Acting Beyond Jurisdiction. *  DGGI Meerut | Court Denies Bail to Accused in Claiming Fake ITC And Export Refunds *  Denial of GST Rate Revision Benefit to Contractor Violates Article 14: Rajasthan HC *  GST Registration Cancellation for Non-Filing of Returns: Gauhati High Court Directs Restoration on Compliance. *   Supreme Court Quashes FEMA Adjudication Orders, Revives Proceedings at  Show Cause Stage. *   Higher Rank, Harsher Punishment Justified: Supreme Court Restores Dismissal  of Bank Manager in Misappropriation Case. *   Limitation for Export Refund to Be Counted from Foreign Exchange Realisation,  Not From Export Invoices Issuance: CESTAT  

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