Chartered Accountant
Bookmark and Share
click here to subscribe our newsletter
 
 
Corporate News *  GST registration cancellation without reasons amounts to ‘Economic Death’ of business: Supreme Court. *  No GST refund if appeal before GSTAT is filed late: Gujarat High Court. *  Mere upload of GST notice on portal not valid service, appeal limitation won’t start: Punjab & Haryana High Court. *  Taxpayer can’t be penalised for missing notices hidden under ‘Additional Notices/Orders’: Calcutta High Court allows fresh adjudication. *  State tax officer can’t issue GST SCN beyond CBIC-assigned jurisdiction: Bombay High Court stays recovery proceedings. *  Earlier 7.5% Pre-Deposit must count towards mandatory 10% for Appeal: Uttarakhand high court quashes CESTAT Order. *  Third Parties can’t challenge GST Advance Rulings merely due to financial impact: Karnataka HC *  GST SCN generated using AI tool quashed: Punjab & Haryana High Court *  Bank Attachment Quashed as Madras HC Quashes GST Order Issued Against Deceased Person *  ITC Blocking Order for Failure to Record ‘Reason to Believe’ U/R 86A Quashed: Allahabad High Court *  Govt Extends GSTAT Appeal Filing Deadline From 30 June to July 31, 2026 *  GST Demand on RWA Stayed: Allahabad High Court Questions Taxability of Electricity Distribution to Flat Owners *  CBIC Clarifies Jurisdiction After GST Registration Transfer: Earlier Proceedings Remain Valid, New Officer to Continue Action *  GST authorities’ certification not mandatory for reimbursement, but tax payment must be proven: Karnataka HC *  Contractor can’t seek gst reimbursement through writ when contract has arbitration clause: Karnataka HC *  Unsigned Order Is No Order in Law: AP HC Quashes GST Assessment Order for Want of Officer’s Signature *  Customs Can’t Levy Rs. 1.36 Crore Cost Recovery Charges Without Proof of Full-Day Officer Deployment: CESTAT  *  12% IGST Payable On Imported Dialysis Machine Parts: CESTAT *  Bombay High Court Admits Challenge to GST Limitation Extension Notifications; Grants Protection Against Coercive Recovery *  Criminal Case Can’t Run Parallel to GST Proceedings on Same Facts: Allahabad High Court *  Allahabad High Court Stays GST Detention Order; Directs Release of Vehicle and Goods on Deposit of Rs. 1.44 Lakh *  Service Tax Can’t Be Levied on Loss-Making Contracts: Gujarat High Court *  GSTN Mandates Ship-to GSTIN in e-Invoice and e-Way Bill APIs; Introduces Voluntary e-Way Bill Closure Facility from August 1, 2026 *  GST Appeal Can’t Be Rejected as Time-Barred When Taxpayer Was Pursuing Rectification Remedy: Telangana High Court *  Absence of E-Way Bill and Transport Documents Justifies Customs Seizure U/s 110: Gauhati HC *  Madras High Court Upholds GST Late Fee and Penalty for Non-Filing of Annual Return, Dismisses Challenge  *  GST Records, Purchase Documents Sufficient to Discharge Burden Under Customs Act: CESTAT Orders Release of 3.65 Kg Gold  *  No Sugar Cess Payable on Sugar Exported Out of India: CESTAT *  Road Construction Services Exempt and SCN Time-Barred: CESTAT Quashes Service Tax Demand Based Solely on Form 26AS  *  ITC Freeze Upheld After GST Dept Find Suppliers Were Allegedly Fake Bill-Trading Entities: Madras HC 
Subject News *  Input service benefits can’t be denied: CESTAT allows export refund despite MMTC acting as Canalising agency. *  No service tax demand without proof of service of SCN: CESTAT. *  Service tax demand quashed as dept. fails to prove service of SCN: CESTAT *  GST : Mere allegation of inadequate consideration of reply not enough to invoke writ jurisdiction: Delhi High Court *  Onerous conditions imposed for provisional release of seized imported goods shouldn’t amount to virtual denial of relief: CESTAT. *  GST SCN without alleging fraud cannot invoke sec. 74: Karnataka High Court quashes adjudication order. *  Extended Limitation Can’t Be Invoked Merely on Form 26AS Data: CESTAT *  Revenue-Sharing with Restaurants Not Taxable as Business Support Service: CESTAT *  R. 6(3) Option Can’t Be Forced on Taxpayer; CESTAT Quashes Rs. 12.36 Crore CENVAT Credit Demand *  Excise Duty | Power Consumption Alone Can’t Prove Clandestine Manufacture: Karnataka High Court *  Madras High Court Examines DGGI’s Authority to Issue GST Penalty Orders Under Section 122, Adds DGGI as Party *  Proceedings under omitted r. 96(10) can’t survive without saving clause: andhra pradesh high court quashes gst refund recovery *  Excise duty power consumption alone can’t prove clandestine manufacture: karnataka high court *  Madras high court rules GST show cause notices must disclose grounds for invoking extended limitation *  Court Can’t Direct Extension GST Return Deadlines or Waive Interest and Penalties: Karnataka High Court *  GST Notifications Can’t Go Beyond GST Council Recommendations: Madras High Court Quashes SCN on Branded Pulses *  Appeal Can’t Be Dismissed for Delay When Dept’s Own Order Mis-states Limitation Period: CESTAT *  No Evidence of KYC or Due Diligence Breach By Customs Broker: CESTAT Quashes Licence Revocation in Export Overvaluation Case *  Glucometers Are Chemical Analysis Instruments Classifiable Under Tariff Heading 9027: CESTAT *  Validity of Post-GST Service Tax Proceedings Upheld: Gujarat High Court Dismisses Challenge to S. 73 SCN *  Rectified GST Refund Applications Can’t Be Rejected as Time-Barred If Original Refund Claim Was Filed Within Limitation: Gujarat HC *  Service Tax Refund Can’t Be Denied as Time-Barred When Levy Itself Is Unconstitutional: Gujarat High Court *  Same Officer Can’t Act As Auditor & Adjudicator: Karnataka High Court *  Karnataka High Court Condones 324-Day Delay, Revives Customs Appeal in Jewellery Pilferage Case  *  Madras High Court Quashes GST Assessment Order Passed Ex Parte Despite Prior ITC Reversal; Lifts Bank Attachment *  Tobacco Process Doesn’t Amount to Manufacturing: Madras High Court Quashes Rs. 1.32 Crore Compensation Cess Demand  *  Recovery Notice Unsustainable After Voluntary Reversal of Unutilised Credit: CESTAT  *  GST | ‘System Generated’ SCN Without Officer Details Invalid: Allahabad HC  *  Electronic Records Without Statutory Certification Requirements Can’t Justify Undervaluation Allegations: CESTAT *  Madras High Court Stays GST Order, Finds Prima Facie Merit in Plea Against S. 74 Proceedings Based on S. 73 Intimation  

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