Chartered Accountant
Bookmark and Share
click here to subscribe our newsletter
 
 
Corporate News *  Dept. Can’t Classify Product as Zarda Scented Tobacco After Repeatedly Approving It As Chewing Tobacco: CESTAT *  Mere Uploading Of GST Order On Portal Is Not “Valid” Service: Tripura HC *  CGST Can Proceed Even If SGST Closed Similar Case Earlier: Delhi HC *  SC upholds 28% GST on online gaming with retrospective effect. *  West Bengal Govt cuts E-way Bill Threshold limit to Rs. 50,000 for intra-state goods movement. *  Criminal Prosecution Under Central Excise Act Can’t Continue After CESTAT Sets Aside Duty Demand on Merits: Punjab & Haryana High Court. *  Madras High Court Quashes GST Assessment Orders for Denial of Personal Hearing; Remands Matter Subject to 10% Deposit *  Ex Parte GST Order: Madras High Court Directs Immediate Removal of Bank/ITC Attachment Upon 25% Deposit *  J.K. Cement Receives GST Demand Order of Rs 8,02,113/- from Ahmedabad Tax Authority *  Delhi Police EOW Busts Alleged Rs. 128 Crore GST Fake Invoice Network. *  REPLY TO SCN CAN’T BE TREATED AS “EMPTY FORMALITY”: ORISSA HIGH COURT QUASHES GST DEMAND OF RS. 57.30 LAKH *  Challenge to CGST Provisions restricting ITC to Bonafide Purchasers : Allahabad HC issues notice *  CBIC Notifies Revised Customs Tariff Values for Edible Oils, Gold, Silver, Brass Scrap and Areca Nuts *  Delhi HC Orders Removal of GST Attachment After Statutory 1 Year Period Expired *  GSTAT Extends Relaxed Appeal Filing Guidelines till December 31, 2026 *  AO fails to Provide Import - Export Data from DGFT to Taxpayer for Reconciliation *  Gold, Silver Imports To Get Costlier As Govt Raises Customs Duty To 10%  *  GSTAT Enables Pre-Payment Access to Document Upload and Checklist for GST Appeal Filing *  GST Portal Restrictions Can’t Override Statute: Gujarat HC Allows Cross-State Transfer Of CGST ITC After Amalgamation *  Centre Revises HS Codes for Large Diameter Steel Pipes Used in Oil & Gas Pipelines *  Customs Duty Liability Arises On Warehouse Clearance Date: Supreme Court *  Government lifts export ban on de-oiled rice bran *  CESTAT Grants 12% Interest on Pre-Deposit for Investigation from Date of Deposit till Refund and Denies Interest on Interest. *  Government Overhauls GST Classification Framework for Non-Alcoholic Beverages; Fruit Juice Drinks, Milk-Based Beverages and Caffeinated Drinks to Attract Revised 5% and 40% GST Rates from May 1, 2026 *  India’s gross GST collections hit a record Rs 2.42 lakh crore in April, up 8.7% *  Customs clearance stalled, revenue hit over MRP dispute *  Shipping Corporation explores Middle East routes as Hormuz tensions disrupt cargo movement *  India, Kenya signs MoU for exchange of pre-arrival customs information *  No demand of Taxes under Reverse Charge if Tax Already Discharged by Service Provider under forward charge *  The India-New Zealand Free Trade Agreement, signed "once-in-a-generation" deal that eliminates tariffs on 100% of Indian exports to New Zealand
Subject News *  Consignment Sales Can’t Be Reclassified as Inter-State Sales Based on Pre-Agreement Evidence: CESTAT *  Exporter Can’t Be Denied Advance Authorization Benefit Due To ICEGATE Technical Glitch: Delhi High Court *  No GST Demand For Mere Wrong Set-Off Of IGST Credit Under CGST And SGST Heads: Kerala HC. *  Cenvat Credit Can’t Be Denied on Input Services Having Nexus With Manufacturing Activities: CESTAT *  Pending Proceedings Can’t Survive Without Saving Clause: Calcutta High Court Quashes GST Demand of Rs. 6.28 Crore After Omission of Rule 96(10) *  Madras HC Quashes GST Demands on TASMAC (Tamil Nadu State Marketing Corporation) Bar Licence Fee *  GST Proceedings Cannot Survive Omitted Rule Without Saving Clause: Calcutta HC *  Provisional Release Can’t Be Denied Solely On Dept. Suspicion Of Misclassification And Undervaluation Of Imported Goods: CESTAT *  Businesses Should Not Be Kept Outside GST Regime Without Due Process: Gauhati High Court *  Punjab & Haryana HC Directs Reconsideration of Contractors’ Claim for Additional GST Payment After Tax Rate Hike From 12% to 18% *  S. 108 Statements Can’t Be Sole Basis Without Following Section 138B Procedure: CESTAT *  Bombay High Court Frames Key Questions on Mandatory Distribution of ITC U/s 20 CGST Act *  Filing of Annexure-B for Refund Applications involving Accumulated ITC using the offline utility in GST portal: GSTN *  No Service Tax on Parent Company’s Un-Invoiced Cost Allocations Without Actual Service or Consideration: CESTAT  *  Calcutta High Court Upholds GST Classification of Polypropylene Leno Bags as Plastic Products *  DRC-01 Summary Can’t Replace Mandatory SCN: Gauhati High Court *  GSTAT Issues Major Bench Allocation Framework; All Appeals to First Go Before Division Bench *  ITC Blocking Without Reasoned Order Violates Rule 86A; Punjab & Haryana HC Directs Release of Credit *  Allahabad HC Refuses Bail to CGST Superintendent In Rs. 70 Lakh Bribery Case *  S.130 Can’t Be Invoked Without Prior Tax Determination U/s 73/74: Allahabad High Court Quashes GST Confiscation Proceedings *  SC grants Bail to Rs 54cr GST case  *  Karnataka HC Sets Aside Duplicate GST Orders, Orders Fresh Hearing on GSTIN Cancellation *  DRC-01 Summary Can’t Replace Mandatory SCN: Gauhati High Court *  Transfer Of Unutilized ITC After Amalgamation - Supreme Court Issues Notice *  PUNJAB & HARYANA HC QUASHES GST CANCELLATION NOTICE FOR FAILURE TO PROVIDE CBIC ENQUIRY REPORT *  LICENSE FEE, TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE CHARGES NOT INCLUDIBLE IN CUSTOMS VALUE UNLESS THEY ARE A CONDITION OF SALE: CESTAT *  DELHI HC ORDERS REMOVAL OF GST ATTACHMENT AFTER STATUTORY 1 YEAR PERIOD EXPIRED *  CUSTOMS BROKER CAN’T BE FAULTED JUST BECAUSE EXPORTER’S GST REGISTRATION WAS PREVIOUSLY CANCELLED: CESTAT   *  Supreme Court Dismisses Review Plea Against Delhi HC Ruling Holding Real Operator Behind Fake GST Firms Liable As ‘Taxable Person  *  GST Appeal Can’t Be Rejected Merely Because DRC-07 Was Not Uploaded On Portal: Bombay High Court  

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