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 STUDY/2010-11/30
20 November 2010

Utilisation of credit on input services falling under Rule 6(5) of CCR, 2004

 

PJ/Case Study/2010-11/30

 

 

CASE STUDY

 

Prepared By:

CA Pradeep Jain and

Sukhvinder Kaur, LLB [FYIC]

 

Introduction: -

 

In Rule 6 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 it has been provided that credit cannot be availed on inputs or input services in the manufacture of exempted goods or in providing non-taxable services. However, in Rule 6 (5) exception has been provided that in case specified input services are used then 100% credit can be utilized for discharging service tax liability. In the case under study the issued involved was whether the Noticee was using the input services falling under Rule 6 (5) of the said Rules making them eligible for using 100% credit for paying service tax.    

 

Relevant Legal Provisions: -

 

Rule 6 (3) of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004:

 

(3) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-rules (1) and (2), the manufacturer of goods or the provider of output service, opting not to maintain separate accounts, shall follow either of the following options, as applicable to him, namely:-


(i) the manufacturer of goods shall pay an amount equal to five per cent. of value of the exempted goods and the provider of output service shall pay an amount equal to six per cent. of value of the exempted services; or.


(ii) the manufacturer of goods or the provider of output service shall pay an amount equivalent to the CENVAT credit attributable to inputs and input services used in, or in relation to, the manufacture of exempted goods or for provision of exempted services subject to the conditions and procedure specified in sub-rule (3A).


Explanation I.- If the manufacturer of goods or the provider of output service, avails any of the option under this sub-rule, he shall exercise such option for all exempted goods manufactured by him or, as the case may be, all exempted services provided by him, and such option shall not be withdrawn during the remaining part of the financial year.

Explanation II.-For removal of doubt, it is hereby clarified that the credit shall not be allowed on inputs and input services used exclusively for the manufacture of exempted goods or provision of exempted service.

 

Rule 6 (5) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004:

 

(5) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-rules (1), (2) and (3), credit of the whole of service tax paid on taxable service as specified in sub-clause (g), (p), (q), (r), (v), (w), (za), (zm), (zp), (zy), (zzd), (zzg), (zzh), (zzi), (zzk), (zzq) and (zzr) of clause (105) of section 65 of the Finance Act shall be allowed unless such service is used exclusively in or in relation to the manufacture of exempted goods or providing exempted services.

 

In the case of M/s Hotel Rawal Kot (The Indian Hotels Pvt Ltd), Jodhpur

[Order-in-Original No. 644/ST/2009-10, Dated: 27.07.2010]

 

Brief Facts: -

 

-           Noticee is engaged in Hotel Business and is registered under the Service Tax Department.

 

-           On scrutiny of the ST-3 filed for half-year ending March 2006, Department alleged that Noticee is providing both taxable and non-taxable service and is not maintaining separate accounts. Therefore, it was contended that as per Rule 6(3) (c) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 the Noticee could use 20% Cenvat credit to pay the service and the remaining 80% was to be paid in cash.

 

-           It was alleged against the Noticee that they have irregularly used cenvat credit to discharge their service tax liability which was to be discharged in cash and thereby have contravened the provisions of Rule 6 (3) (c).

 

-           Thus, show cause notice was issued for recovery of amount irregularly used from cenvat credit with interest and penalty was also sought to be imposed. 

 

Noticee’s Contentions: -

 

·                      The Noticee admitted that they were providing taxable as well as non-taxable service.

 

·                      It was however, contended that they were taking cenvat credit on two type of input services. One type of input services were mentioned in Rule 6(5) of the CCR, 2004. The other is normal input services. On this second type of input services, the clause of Rule 6(3)( c) is applicable and it can be used upto 20% of service tax payable on output services. The second type of services were listed in Rule 6(5) and these were used for providing taxable as well as exempted services. The Rule 6(5) says that Rule 6(1), 6(2) and 6(3) is not applicable to this rule. This implies that the input services listed in rule 6(5) then we can use the 100% Cenvat credit. The limit of use of Cenvat credit upto 20% of output service mentioned in Rule 6(3) during the relevant period is not applicable in this case.

 

·                      It was contended that since limit of 20% was not applicable on these input services. Hence the show cause notice should be dropped.  

 

Issue Involved: -

 

The issue involved in this case is that

 

Whether the Noticee is taking Cenvat credit of input services which are specified in Rule 6 (5) of CCR, 2004 and whether 100% credit can be used for paying the service tax.

 

Reasoning of the Order: -

 

Ø                   The Deputy Commissioner noticed that the Noticee had taken cenvat credit on input services which were specified in Rule 6 (5) of CCR, 2004 and these input services were also used in providing taxable services.

 

Ø                   Accordingly, it was held that as per Rule 6 (5) of CCR, 2004, against the service tax liability, the Noticee could use 100%credit from cenvat account instead of 20%.

 

Ø                   It was held that since the ceiling of 20% is not applicable in Noticee’s case, the mischief of Rule 6 (3) (c) is not applicable.

 

Order: -

 

Proceedings initiated by the impugned show cause notice is set aside.

 

Conclusion: -

 

The Deputy Commissioner has rightly held that Noticee can use 100% credit for payment of service tax on input services listed under Rule 6 (5) of CCR, 2004. Even in current rule also, this list is still there. The proportionate reversal or separate inventory or payment of service tax @ 6% on exempted services is not applicable if the credit is taken on services listed in Rule 6(5) of Cenvat credit Rules, 2004.

 

*******

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