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/2015-16/2877

Whether credit of service tax paid on catering and guest house services for employees is admissible?

Case:-COMMISSIONER OF C. EX., NASHIK VERSUS MAHINDRA & MAHINDRA LTD.
 
Citation:- 2015 (39) S.T.R. 298 (Tri. - Mumbai)
 
Brief Facts:-Revenue has filed this appeal against Order-in-Appeal No. CEX/ADK/19/APL/NSK/2007, dated 23-1-2007 passed by Commissioner of Central Excise & Customs (Appeals), Nashik. Vide the impugned order the ld. appellate authority has allowed Cenvat credit on input services, namely, Mandap keeper services, catering services, courier services, photography services, guest house services, mobile services, etc. availed by the appellant in the manufacturing unit. Revenue has filed this appeal on the ground that the guest house and catering services in respect of which input services credit has been allowed have no nexus with the business of manufacturing undertaken by the appellant and therefore, allowing of this credit is not in accordance with the law.

Appellants Contention:-The ld. Additional Commissioner (AR) appearing for the Revenue reiterates the grounds urged in the appeal memorandum and submits that in respect of these two input services, no nexus is established between the availment of services and the manufacturing activities.

Respondents Contention:-The ld. Deputy Manager (Excise) appearing on behalf of the respondent submits that as far as the catering services is concerned, the issue is already decided by the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Ultratech Cement Ltd. - 2010 (20) S.T.R. 577 (Bom.) wherein it was held that catering service is an eligible input service subject to the condition that if any cost is recovered from the employees, then the assessee would not eligible to avail Cenvat credit on the cost recovered from the employee. The appellant submits that during the impugned period December, 2004 to March, 2005, the appellant had recovered part of the cost from their employees and they are willing to reverse the proportionate Service Tax credit in respect of such cost recovered along with interest and therefore, the availment of Cenvat credit in respect of catering service cannot be disputed. As regards the guest house service, he submits that the guest house was used by the employees of the company and therefore this has some nexus with the manufacturing activity. Accordingly, he pleads for dismissing the appeal.
 
Reasoning of Judgement:-The tribunal have carefully considered the submissions made by both the sides. As regards the catering service, the decision of the Hon’ble High Court in the case of Ultratech Cement Ltd. case is in favour of the assessee and therefore admissibility of input Service Tax credit on catering service is beyond doubt. However, the assessee will not be eligible for proportionate Service Tax credit on catering service, wherein the cost of service has been recovered from their employees. Subject to reversal of such credit along with interest thereon, allowing of Cenvat credit on catering service is sustainable in law. As regards the guest house services it cannot be said that there is a nexus between the service and the manufacturing activities. Therefore, there is a merit in the contention of the Revenue that guest house service is not an eligible input service. Accordingly, we set aside the order allowing input Service Tax credit on guest house service. But for the above modification, the impugned order is upheld and the Revenue’s appeal is rejected.
 
Decision:-Appeal dismissed.
 
Comment:- The analogy in the case is that if providing canteen facilities to the employees is mandatory and if such facilities have nexus or integral connection with the manufacture of final product then the Cenvat credit of the service tax paid on the catering services is admissible. But, if certain amount for catering services is recovered from the employees, then proportionate Service Tax credit in respect of cost recovered from employees is not admissible and is liable to be reversed. Moreover, it was held that as the guest house service is not being connected with the manufacturing activities, the credit of service tax is not admissible.

Prepared By:- Neelam 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