Chartered Accountant
Bookmark and Share
click here to subscribe our newsletter
 
 
Corporate News *  Service tax penalty can’t survive when assessee acted on dept.’s own view of non-taxability: Delhi High Court. *  GST section 74 extended limitation questionable when form 26AS mismatch was already known: Karnataka High Court grants interim relief. *  CGST demand prima facie impermissible after state GST settlement under section 128A: Bombay High Court. *  Supreme Court asks GSTAT to sympathetically consider delay as taxpayers pursued remedy before wrong forum. *  Supreme Court stays Tripura High Court ruling protecting genuine buyers from ITC denial over supplier’s GST default. *  Diary entries alone can’t prove clandestine removal of goods: CESTAT quashes excise penalty on steel trader. *  Customs could investigate preferential tariff claims even before sec. 28DA: Delhi High Court. *  Customs dept. relied on fake AI generated case laws: supreme court quashes Rs. 425.28 crore penalty. *  No GST exemption in affiliation and annual registration charges for admission or conduct Of examinations: GSTAT. *  Mere invoices, cheque payments insufficient to establish genuine movement of goods: GSTAT restores Rs. 43.44 lakh ITC demand. *  Consolidated GST show cause notice covering multiple financial years is not without jurisdiction: Delhi High Court. *  Construction of independent houses on separate plots not taxable as ‘Residential Complex’ without common facilities: CESTAT. *  GST penalty exceeding statutory maximum unsustainable; Allahabad High Court quashes ? 50,000/- penalty after taxpayer filed return and paid late fee. *  GST order against standard chartered bank passed without hearing set aside by Bombay High Court. *  Retracted statements can’t be relied upon without cross-examination: CESTAT quashes gold confiscation. *  Burden to prove misclassification lies on customs department: CESTAT. *  CESTAT quashes Rs. 98 lakh excise demand on clearance of used refractory brick scrap. *  Service tax demand on irrigation works quashed: Karnataka High Court rules sale of goods component not taxable as service. *  GSTAT restores tax and penalty for transporting iron scrap without E-way bill citing intent to evade tax. *  Madras High Court stays GST recovery from directors without opportunity to show cause under section 89. *  Madras high court stays GST recovery notice against directors; finds prima facie case on applicability of section 79(1)(c). *  Procedural lapses can’t justify harsh punishment without serious customs breach: CESTAT quashes customs broker licence revocation. *  Service tax payable on land leasing and sports complex charges: CESTAT. *  Settled customs dispute can’t be reopened through Article 226 challenge to interest liability: Delhi High Court. *  Mere facilitation of customs clearance can’t establish knowledge of smuggling: Madras High Court. *  GST registration cancellation stayed: Allahabad High Court questions 99% ITC utilisation cap under rule 86B. *  Composition scheme lapses automatically on crossing Rs. 1.5 crore turnover: GSTAT. *  Gujarat High Court quashes GST cancellation orders after officer relied on non-existent AI-generated case laws. *  Importers liable for customs duty benefits availed through manipulated scrips: Delhi High Court. *  Procedural E-way bill lapse alone can’t justify penalty where genuine transaction and absence of tax evasion are established: GSTAT.
Subject News *  Documentary evidence dominates probe, further custody unwarranted: mumbai court grants bail in Rs. 22.44 crore customs duty evasion case. *  Business premises can’t remain sealed for non-participation in GST search: Allahabad High Court. *  GST pre-deposit must be refunded proportionately when taxpayer partly succeeds in appeal: Bombay High Court. *  Supreme Court grants 30 days to file GST appeal; keeps pre-deposit issue open due to deposit in parallel CGST proceedings. *  GST demand can’t exceed amount proposed in SCN: Allahabad High Court quashes Rs. 20.47 Crore order. *  Hundreds-of-crores GST demand and heavy 10% pre-deposit no ground to bypass statutory appeal: Punjab & Haryana High Court. *  Delhi High Court refuses to entertain challenge to gold confiscation due to statutory appeal remedy and unexplained delay. *  Procedural error in customs broker licence inquiry can be rectified through remand: Delhi High Court. *  GSTR-2A mismatch alone can’t justify ITC denial without invoice-wise verification; personal hearing mandatory: GSTAT. *  GST order passed without uploading personal hearing notices violates sec. 75(4): Allahabad High Court. *  TAX EVASION - Sec. 74 GST SCN quashed for not spelling out fraud, wilful misstatement or suppression: Allahabad High Court. *  STPI’s SOFTEX certification and NoC charges taxable as business support services: CESTAT. *  Suspicion can’t replace proof: CESTAT quashes penalty in alleged gold-smuggling operation. *   Limitation runs from communication of order: Madras High Court upholds rejection of delayed GST Appeals. *  Rajasthan High Court quashes GST demand over unsigned show cause notice. *  ITC recovery upheld where supplier failed to deposit GST: Rajasthan High Court. *  Customs commissioner’s empowered to make port trust liable for duty on pilfered goods: Supreme Court. *  Rectification proceedings can’t be used to challenge an uncontested GST assessment through a writ petition: Andhra Pradesh HC. *  GST proceedings against deceased proprietor unsustainable without notice to legal heir: GSTAT. *  Mere availment of ineligible self-assessed ITC doesn’t amount to suppression without evidence of fraud or wilful misstatement: GSTAT. *  Disposal of mining overburden by entity authorised by mining lease holder constitutes taxable service: CESTAT. *  Toll plaza data not mandatory for ITC refund: GSTAT. *  Disputed GST fraud allegations require investigation: Punjab and Haryana High Court makes interim bail absolute in alleged fraud and GST fraud case. *  Non-manufacturer contractor liable to deposit excess excise duty collected from buyer: CESTAT. *  GST order can’t reject taxpayer’s reply as “not satisfactory” without reasons: Madhya Pradesh High Court. *  Uncorroborated statements can’t establish alleged diversion of duty-free goods: CESTAT. *  Erection services were not liable to service tax prior to 10th september 2004: CESTAT. *  Sec. 74 GST notice must spell out statutory ingredients for invoking extended tax demand proceedings: Allahabad High Court. *  No jurisdictional bar under section 6(2)(b) in parallel CGST SGST proceedings: Delhi High Court refuses to bypass GST appeal remedy. *  Madras High Court remits GST demand for fresh adjudication after taxpayer claims it was unaware of SCN following business closure.  

Comments

Print   |    |  Comment

PJ/Case Laws/2011-12/1004

Whether tax paid on mediclaim insurance and group insurance policy taken for employees or staffs deniable as cenvat credit or not?

Prepared By:
CA. Rajani Thanvi &
Bharat Rathore

 
 
 
Case: - M/s Fiamm Minda Automotive Ltd. Vs CCE, Delhi-IIII
 
Citation: - 2011-TIOL-394-CESTAT-DEL.
 
Issue:-
 
  1.  Whether tax paid on mediclaim insurance and group insurance policy taken for employees or staffs deniable as cenvat credit or not?
  2. Whether credit deniable on CHA service where the goods are exported on FOB basis and ownership retailed till delivery of goods on board the vessel?
  3. Whether Rent a cab service use for transport of vendors and clients from guest house to factory, credit of service tax paid deniable or not??
  4. Whether insuring export of goods relates to business activity, tax paid on insurance of export goods deniable or not??
 
 
Brief Facts:- Appellant had taken credit on various services
  1. Tax paid on mediclaim insurance and group insurance policy taken for employees/ Staff,
  2. CHA services when goods are exported on FOB basis and ownership retailed till delivery of goods on board the vessel,
  3. Rent a cab service utilized for transport of vendors and clients from guest house to factory, and
  4. Tax paid on insurance of export goods.
 

Assessee filed an appeal against commissioner (Appeals) order and department also filed appeal against the same order in respect of certain aspects, which has been decided against the department.
 

Department’s Contention: - Department contention on each of the dispute are as follows:-
 
  1. Group Insurance/ mediclaim Policy:- The department aggrieved that the credit of the service tax paid on mediclaim insurance and group insurance policy taken for their employees/ staff who are not covered by the ESI has been disallowed on the ground that the same cannot be considered as input service in terms of the activities relating to business. The department also said that it is not mandatory for the appellants to take mediclaim policy and accident policy for their employees it is only a welfare measure and therefore it is not treated as business activities.
  2. CHA Service:- The Department challenging the allowing of credit on service tax paid on CHA services.
  3. Rent a Cab service: The Department aggrieved that the credit of the service of rent a cab on the ground that part of service has been utilised for transporting vendors and clients from the guest house to factory and vice versa.
  4. General Insurance for exporting the goods: The department challenging the allowing of credit on service tax paid on General insurance for exporting the goods on the ground that such activities should be treated only as additional business activities. The department pursue that this activity
 
Assessee’s Contention:  Assessee contention on each of the dispute are as follows:-
 
  1. Group Insurance/ mediclaim Policy:- The assessee submit that in respect of category of employees and officials who are not covered by the ESI, they are required to make compensation in the event of illness/ accident. As a prudent business proposition, they incurred expenses by taking mediclaim insurance and personal accident insurance and these expenditures are clearly in the course of business activities and should be treated as input service.
  2. CHA Service:- The assessee submit that as per Para 8.2 of the Boards Circular No. 97/8/2007 dated 23.08.07 the supply of goods for export was on FOB basis and there fore, ownership, possession associated with obligation relating to loss or damage of the goods till they are delivered on board the ship rest with the party and therefore CHA services should be treated as input service.
  3. Rent a Cab Service: The assessee submit that vendors and clients have been transported from the guest hous to factory and vice versa these activities should be treated as business activities in relation to the clearance of final products from the assessee’s factory and the clients are to enable to sell their products and naturally part of the business activities.
  4. General Insurance for exporting the goods:- The assessee submit that insurance for exporting goods is business activity and service tax credit on the same should not be denied to us. 
 
 
 

Reasoning of Judgment: -  The Hon’ble Tribunal heard the submissions of both side and the findings are as under on each of dispute:-
 

  1. Group Insurance/ mediclaim Policy:- The Tribunal held that the issue stands settled against the department by the decision given in Stanzen Toyotetsu India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CCE, Bangalore [2009 TIOL-697-CESTAT-Bang]. There is a merit in the appeal filed by the assessee.
  2. CHA Service:- The Tribunal held that the assessee has shown that the goods have been exported on FOB basis and that the ownership is retained till the delivery of the goos on board the vessel until receipt of bill of lading.
  3. Rent a Cab Service: The Tribunal do not find any valid reason for interfere with the order of the  Commissioner (Appeals) in so far as the same relates to the extending the benefit of credit on the service tax involved in the rent – a – cab even when the cars used for transporting vendors and client.
  4. General Insurance for exporting the goods:- The Tribunal held that service tax paid on insurance relating the insurance of export goods treating the same as part of business activity. And do not find any valid reason for interfere with the order of the Commissioner (Appeals)

 

 
 
 

Decision: - Appeal of the department is rejected and the appeal of the assessee allowed.

---------------

 
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