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/2013-14/1722

Whether credit in respect of services used for generation of electricity for captive use admissible?

Case:-JSWSTEEL LTD Vs COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, THANE-II
 
Citation:-  2013-TIOL-1146-CESTAT-MUM
 
Brief facts:-Material facts of this case are that Revenue denied credit in respect of Service Tax paid on Input services which are used in or in relation to the generation of electricity in a captive power plant on the ground that definition of Inputs & Input Services are different and there is no provision in the definition of “Input Service” for allowing credit in respect of services used for generation of electricity for captive use. Appellant submitted that the power generated in the captive power plant is partly used in manufacture of dutiable final products and partly sold to Maharashtra State Electricity Development Corporation and they had taken proportionate credit in respect of input services which had gone into generation of electricity which is used in manufacture of final product and in case of taxable services covered under rule 6(5) of CCR, they availed full credit. Revenue also contended that applicants had not opted to follow the provisions of Rule 6 and not informed regarding taking of proportionate credit. The applicant filed this application for waiver of pre-deposit of duty of Rs. 1,69,77,363/-, interest and penalty. The demand is confirmed after denying the credit in respect of the service tax paid on input services which are used in or in relation to the generation of electricity in a captive power plant.
 
Appellant’s contention:- The contention of the applicant is that the applicants were having the captive power plant and the power generated in the active power plant is partly used in the manufacture of final product which is cleared on payment of duty and partly the electricity was sold to Maharashtra State Electricity Development Corporation. The applicants were availing proportionate credit in respect of the input services which have gone into generation of electricity which is used in  the manufacture of final product. In case of taxable services which are covered under Rule 6(5) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, the applicant’s availed full credit of service tax paid. The applicants relied upon annexures B and C to the show cause notice where it is admitted that the applicants were taking proportionate credit in respect of the input services which have gone into the generation of electricity used in the manufacture of goods. The contention is that the adjudicating authority denied the credit on the ground that the definition of input and input services are different and inputs used in or in relation to generation of electricity whereas no such provision is under the definition of input service. The input service also includes any service used by the manufacturer whether directly or indirectly in relation to the manufacture of final product. The input services which are used in the generation of electricity are directly and indirectly used in the manufacture of final product which is cleared on payment of duty, therefore the interpretation given by the learned Commissioner in the impugned order is contrary to the provisions of the Cenvat Credit Rules.

Respondent’s contention:-The Revenue submitted that the applicants had not opted as per the provisions of Rule 6 of the Cenvat Credit Rules for availing proportionate credit and had not informed the Revenue regarding taking of proportionate credit. The Revenue also submitted that the applicants never disclosed to the Revenue that part electricity so generated is sold to Maharashtra State Electricity Development Corporation hence the demand is rightly made.
 
Reasoning of judgement:- The bench found that the adjudicating authority denied the credit in respect of service tax paid on the taxable services which are used in or in relation to generation of electricity. Part of such electricity was sold outside the factory. The applicants are availing proportionate credit in respect of the service tax paid on the taxable services which are used in or in relation to manufacture of goods. The arguments raised by the Revenue during the hearing of the stay application were not the basis for denying the credit in the impugned order. As the applicants were availing only proportionate credit in respect of the taxable services which were used in or in relation to generation of electricity which is, further used in the manufacture of excisable goods hence the applicants made out a case for waiver of pre-deposit of the dues. Therefore, the pre-deposit of the dues is waived and recovery of the same is stayed during the pendency of the appeal.
 
Decision:-The stay petition was allowed.
 
Comment:-The analogy drawn from this case is that prima facie the manufacturer is eligible for claiming the service tax credit in respect of services that are used in the generation of electricity that is captively consumed in the manufacture of the final dutiable products.
 

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