Chartered Accountant
Bookmark and Share
click here to subscribe our newsletter
 
 
Corporate News *  Missing seized records must be considered while testing ITC claim; duplicate GST demands ordered corrected: Delhi High Court. *  GST appeal can’t be rejected without addressing taxpayer’s grounds: Allahabad High Court. *  Surplus IGST credit can offset CGST, SGST shortfall: GSTAT. *  GST refund can’t be denied when cancelled airfares are returned with tax: GSTAT. *  3 Hearing notices issued within 2 minutes: Gujarat High Court flags portal flaw, seeks report. *  GSTR-9, GSTR-9C filing for FY 2025-26 enabled; pending GSTR-1 and GSTR-3B must be filed first. *  Dupattas are exempt fabrics, can’t be taxed as fibres at 4%: Madras High Court. *  Full transitional credit allowed on capital goods received after GST rollout: GSTAT denies Rs. 6.99 lakh export duty credit. *  GST return mismatch alone can’t justify fraud proceedings: GSTAT orders fresh adjudication under section 73. *  Supplier found non-existent later can’t alone justify input tax credit denial: GSTAT. *  GST interest stops once tax reaches government account, can’t run until return filing: GSTAT. *  Cancelled flat booking- GST refund can’t be denied without excluding COVID period from limitation: GSTAT. *  India notifies rules of origin for India–New Zealand FTA. *  Incomplete E-bike kits classifiable as complete vehicles, but not eligible for CKD duty concession: CESTAT. *  Same GST rate on main input and output can’t by itself bar inverted duty refund: GSTAT. *  Unjust enrichment doesn’t apply to customs refunds from assessments finalised before July 13, 2006: Gujarat High Court. *  CENVAT credit can’t be denied solely because plant And machinery are embedded in earth: Karnataka High Court. *  DFIA exports ineligible for RoDTEP benefits; customs directs repayment with applicable interest. *  Second E-Way bill alone doesn’t prove another supply: GSTAT. *  Bail denied in Rs. 1.19 crore fake GST refund case over risk of accused absconding again: Punjab and Haryana High Court. *  GST registration can be restored after revocation deadline if outstanding dues are paid: Gauhati High Court. *  Multiple GST proceedings over same suppliers: Calcutta High Court directs dept. to share findings for adjudication. *  E-Governance portal services not OIDAR, fixed deposit interest not taxable: CESTAT. *  Rs. 500 Stamp duty required on authority letters for CAs, CMA and GST practitioners in Pune GST division.  *  Rs. 1.10 crore GST refund must be paid in cash after business closure: Allahabad High Court. *  Godown rent attracts 18% GST even when used exclusively for exempt agricultural warehousing: AAR. *  GST portal launches "Multi-State Registration" facility: one master TRN for registration applications across multiple States/UTs. *  RoDTEP scheme extended till 31st December, 2026.  *  Mere disagreement with order can’t override Rs. 20 lakh appeal limit: GSTAT. *  Customs interest can’t be backdated before confiscation liability is determined; nearly 8 year period excluded: Delhi High Court.
Subject News *  GST summons: anticipatory bail maintainable without arrest order, but relief denied in evasion case: Allahabad High Court. *  GST Appeal can’t be decided without hearing taxpayer’s objections to fresh evidence: Allahabad High Court. *  GST ITC can’t be reversed merely because supplier grants discount without reducing tax liability: GSTAT. *  Mere quoting of GST provision is not a valid charge: GSTAT quashes ITC denial. *  Personal hearing mandatory before adverse GST order, even without taxpayer’s request: Rajasthan High Court. *  Parallel bail pleas without full disclosure amount to abuse of process Rs. 43.08 crore GST case sent for fresh hearing: Supreme Court. *  GST refund based on unchallenged advance ruling can’t be recovered using later circular: GSTAT. *  Payment of GST alone doesn’t end interest and penalty liability when tax and interest remain unpaid beyond 30 days of notice: GSTAT. *  GST demand over builders’ 80% procurement rule requires reasoned adjudication: GSTAT. *  Eligible ITC doesn’t automatically entitle taxpayers to compensation cess refund on domestic sales: GSTAT. *  GST confiscation order passed before reply deadline invalid: GSTAT. *  GST interest can’t be retained after tax refund on delayed export receipts: Punjab & Haryana High Court. *  GST appeal can’t be dismissed over pre-deposit shortfall without opportunity To respond: Bombay High Court. *  DGGI SCN can’t be challenged before reply and adjudication:Chhattisgarh High Court. *  GST input tax credit can’t be denied solely due to supplier’s retrospective registration cancellation: GSTAT. *  GST notice must explain fraud allegations; merely repeating section 74 Is not enough:  Himachal Pradesh High Court. *  Audit detection alone can’t justify GST fraud penalty; specific suppression must be proved: GSTAT. *  GST order uploaded only under ‘Additional Notices’ tab without separate intimation set aside: Calcutta High Court. *  Service Tax appeal can’t be rejected for missing pre-deposit proof when payment is already recorded: CESTAT. *  SGST dept. can’t hear appeal against CGST order: Calcutta High Court. *  Mere dispatch of tax order can’t prove service or make appeal time-barred: CESTAT. *  Dealer incentives can’t be taxed merely on ledger entries: CESTAT. *  DGFT orders quashed for failure to supply DRI letter relied upon in SCN: Bombay High Court. *  GST penalty u/s 122(1A) can’t apply to Pre-2021 transactions; unregistered beneficiaries also covered: Delhi High Court. *  Expired E-way bill caused by wrong PIN code can’t justify GST penalty without intent to evade tax: GSTAT. *  Used railway rails can’t be taxed as track material without proof they are fit for reuse: CESTAT. *  Earlier DGGI notice doesn’t bar separate GST demand on different issue: Delhi High Court. *  ITC dispute involves no question of law: GSTAT directs appeal to Vice-President. *  Earlier DGGI notice doesn’t bar separate GST demand On different issue: Delhi High Court. *  No E-way bill required for interstate goods movement in november 2017: GSTAT quashes detention and penalty.  

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