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/2014-15/2503

whether credit of insurance premium allowed?

Case:-Reliance Industries Ltd Vs Commissioner Of Central Excise & Service Tax (Ltu), Mumbai
 
CITATION: -2015-TIOL-181-CESTAT-MUM
 
Brief facts:-the appellant, reliance industries ltd., is a manufacturer of polyester yarn (poy, pta, np, benzene) and is registered with the central excise. The appellant availed cenvat credit of duty paid on inputs, capital goods and input services. Show cause notice dated 6.6.2011 was issued for the period july 2010 to december 2010 on the observation that the appellant was availing and utilizing cenvat credit on input service particularly insurance auxiliary services - general insurance.
 
It further appeared to the revenue that the appellant had availed and utilized cenvat credit of service tax paid on premium paid to insurance companies for group insurance/insurance of their employees including retired employees/mediclaim under category of 'insurance auxiliary services general insurance'. Accordingly, it was proposed to disallow the cenvat credit availed in respect of the insurance premium so paid and it appeared to the department that the premium paid by the appellant in respect of group insurance/insurance of their employees including retired employees/mediclaim is not covered under the definition of 'input services' and it has no direct nexus with the manufacture of the final products and the clearances and storage of the final products.
 
Appellant’s contention:-the appellant contested the show cause notice and made submissions wherein, among others, they submitted that the premium paid to insurance companies was group insurance and mediclaim which was nothing but component of the wages. These were part of the costing of the final product in terms of cas-4. As per cas-4, all non-monetary benefits extended to factory employees were regarded either as direct wages and salaries or as works overhead or administrative overhead, related to production activity and form part of cost of manufacture of final product.
 
Once the expenditure in dispute forms part of the final product, it had to be presumed that the expenses are incurred in relation to such services in relation to manufacture of final product, as was been observed by the hon'ble bombay high court in the case of coca cola india pvt. Ltd. Vs. Cce, pune-iii = 2009-tiol-449-hc-mum-st reported in 2009 (15) str 657 (bom). The hon'ble high court dealing with advertisement cost, held that credit is availed on the tax paid on the input services, which is the advertisement and not on the contents of the advertisement. Thus it was not necessary that the contents of the advertisement must be that of the final product manufactured by the person advertising, so long as the manufacturer can demonstrate that the advertisement services availed have an effect of or impact on the manufacture of the final product. Therefore, the manufacturer was entitled to avail the credit of the service tax paid by him. Once the cost incurred by the service had to be added to the cost, and was so assessed, it was recognised by revenue of the advertisement services having a connection with the manufacture of the final product. This test will also apply in the case of sales promotion. The appellant further relied on the ruling on this tribunal in the case of millipore india ltd. Vs. Cce bangalore-ii reported in 2009 (236) elt 145 (tri-bang) = 2009-tiol-490-cestat-bang, wherein this tribunal held that cenvat credit of service tax on input service i.e. Medical and personal accident policy, group personal accident policy, insurance etc., and took notice of the fact that cas-4 standards requiring all elements of costs to be included in the costing of final product, such elements are elaborated in the standards. Further in para 5.2 of the standards, it was provided that direct wages and salaries shall include house rent allowance, overtime and incentive payments made to employees directly engaged in the manufacturing activities, wherein provision for retirement benefits such as gratuity and superannuation was also provided. This tribunal also held that cas-4 had considered all the services such as medical benefit, subsidized food, education allowance etc., to form part of the cost of the final products, and accordingly held that these services which have been received were rendered only in relation to manufacture of final products. Further, it was noted that the definition of 'input service' was very broad. The said ruling was challenged by the revenue before the hon'ble karnataka high court and the hon'ble high court vide its order dated 11-4-2011 reported at 2012 (26) str 514 (kar.), observed that it was clear in view of cas-4 that those factors have to be taken into consideration while fixing the cost of the final products. If service tax was paid in respect of any of those services which forms part of the costs of the final products certainly the assessee would be entitled to the cenvat credit of the tax so paid. The hon'ble high court also noticed that the definition of 'input service' is too broad and the same is inclusive. It is further held that what is contained in the definition is only illustrative in nature. Activities relating to business and any services rendered in connection therewith would form part of the input services. Accordingly, the appellant prayed for allowing the appeal.
 
Respondent’s contention:-the learned ar relies on the impugned order. The learned ar further submitted that in the case of millipore india (supra), insurance premium for retired employees was not an issue. He further points out from the ruling in the case of coca cola (supra) at para 27 that the use of the word 'activities' in the phrase activities relating to business further signifies the wide import of the phrase activities relating to business. The rule making authority had not employed any qualifying words before the word activities, like main activities or essential activities etc. Therefore, it must follow that all and any activity relating to business falls within the definition of input service provided there is a relation between the manufacturer of concentrate and the activity. Therefore, the phrase 'activities relating to business' were words of wide import. The learned ar further stressed that there has to be a nexus between the expenditure and the manufacture. The element of nexus is absent with respect to insurance premium paid for securing the life/health of the retired employee.
 
Reasoning of judgment:-having considered the rival submissions, the commissioner agreed with the ruling of the hon'ble karnataka high court in the case of millipore india ltd. (supra), wherein, after examining the cas-4 standards, the hon'ble high court accepted that all factors had to be taken into consideration while fixing the cost of the final products. The hon'ble high court further observed that the definition of 'input services' was too broad. Further it was not disputed in the facts of the case that the premium so paid in the present appeal had  formed part of the cost of excisable goods on which excise duty has been paid on removal. Therefore, the appellant is entitled to avail cenvat credit for the insurance premium paid in respect of group insurance/insurance of employees including retired employees/mediclaim which were covered under the definition of 'input services' and have a nexus.
 
Decision:-appeal allowed with consequential benefits.
 
Comment:-the gist of the case is that as per cas-4 standards all elements of costs are required to be included in the costing of final product. In para 5.2 of the standards, it provides that direct wages and salaries shall include house rent allowance, overtime and incentive payments made to employees directly engaged in the manufacturing activities, wherein provision for retirement benefits such as gratuity and superannuation are also provided.  Cas-4 considers all the services such as medical benefit, subsidized food, education allowance etc., to form part of the cost of the final products, and accordingly these services which have been received were rendered only in relation to manufacture of final products. And as the premium paid is part of the cost of excisable goods on which excise duty is paid on removal. Therefore availing cenvat credit for the insurance premium paid in respect of group insurance/insurance of employees including retired employees/mediclaim is covered under the definition of 'input services'.
 

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