Chartered Accountant
Bookmark and Share
click here to subscribe our newsletter
 
 
Corporate News *  Dept. Can’t Classify Product as Zarda Scented Tobacco After Repeatedly Approving It As Chewing Tobacco: CESTAT *  Mere Uploading Of GST Order On Portal Is Not “Valid” Service: Tripura HC *  CGST Can Proceed Even If SGST Closed Similar Case Earlier: Delhi HC *  SC upholds 28% GST on online gaming with retrospective effect. *  West Bengal Govt cuts E-way Bill Threshold limit to Rs. 50,000 for intra-state goods movement. *  Criminal Prosecution Under Central Excise Act Can’t Continue After CESTAT Sets Aside Duty Demand on Merits: Punjab & Haryana High Court. *  Madras High Court Quashes GST Assessment Orders for Denial of Personal Hearing; Remands Matter Subject to 10% Deposit *  Ex Parte GST Order: Madras High Court Directs Immediate Removal of Bank/ITC Attachment Upon 25% Deposit *  J.K. Cement Receives GST Demand Order of Rs 8,02,113/- from Ahmedabad Tax Authority *  Delhi Police EOW Busts Alleged Rs. 128 Crore GST Fake Invoice Network. *  REPLY TO SCN CAN’T BE TREATED AS “EMPTY FORMALITY”: ORISSA HIGH COURT QUASHES GST DEMAND OF RS. 57.30 LAKH *  Challenge to CGST Provisions restricting ITC to Bonafide Purchasers : Allahabad HC issues notice *  CBIC Notifies Revised Customs Tariff Values for Edible Oils, Gold, Silver, Brass Scrap and Areca Nuts *  Delhi HC Orders Removal of GST Attachment After Statutory 1 Year Period Expired *  GSTAT Extends Relaxed Appeal Filing Guidelines till December 31, 2026 *  AO fails to Provide Import - Export Data from DGFT to Taxpayer for Reconciliation *  Gold, Silver Imports To Get Costlier As Govt Raises Customs Duty To 10%  *  GSTAT Enables Pre-Payment Access to Document Upload and Checklist for GST Appeal Filing *  GST Portal Restrictions Can’t Override Statute: Gujarat HC Allows Cross-State Transfer Of CGST ITC After Amalgamation *  Centre Revises HS Codes for Large Diameter Steel Pipes Used in Oil & Gas Pipelines *  Customs Duty Liability Arises On Warehouse Clearance Date: Supreme Court *  Government lifts export ban on de-oiled rice bran *  CESTAT Grants 12% Interest on Pre-Deposit for Investigation from Date of Deposit till Refund and Denies Interest on Interest. *  Government Overhauls GST Classification Framework for Non-Alcoholic Beverages; Fruit Juice Drinks, Milk-Based Beverages and Caffeinated Drinks to Attract Revised 5% and 40% GST Rates from May 1, 2026 *  India’s gross GST collections hit a record Rs 2.42 lakh crore in April, up 8.7% *  Customs clearance stalled, revenue hit over MRP dispute *  Shipping Corporation explores Middle East routes as Hormuz tensions disrupt cargo movement *  India, Kenya signs MoU for exchange of pre-arrival customs information *  No demand of Taxes under Reverse Charge if Tax Already Discharged by Service Provider under forward charge *  The India-New Zealand Free Trade Agreement, signed "once-in-a-generation" deal that eliminates tariffs on 100% of Indian exports to New Zealand
Subject News *  Consignment Sales Can’t Be Reclassified as Inter-State Sales Based on Pre-Agreement Evidence: CESTAT *  Exporter Can’t Be Denied Advance Authorization Benefit Due To ICEGATE Technical Glitch: Delhi High Court *  No GST Demand For Mere Wrong Set-Off Of IGST Credit Under CGST And SGST Heads: Kerala HC. *  Cenvat Credit Can’t Be Denied on Input Services Having Nexus With Manufacturing Activities: CESTAT *  Pending Proceedings Can’t Survive Without Saving Clause: Calcutta High Court Quashes GST Demand of Rs. 6.28 Crore After Omission of Rule 96(10) *  Madras HC Quashes GST Demands on TASMAC (Tamil Nadu State Marketing Corporation) Bar Licence Fee *  GST Proceedings Cannot Survive Omitted Rule Without Saving Clause: Calcutta HC *  Provisional Release Can’t Be Denied Solely On Dept. Suspicion Of Misclassification And Undervaluation Of Imported Goods: CESTAT *  Businesses Should Not Be Kept Outside GST Regime Without Due Process: Gauhati High Court *  Punjab & Haryana HC Directs Reconsideration of Contractors’ Claim for Additional GST Payment After Tax Rate Hike From 12% to 18% *  S. 108 Statements Can’t Be Sole Basis Without Following Section 138B Procedure: CESTAT *  Bombay High Court Frames Key Questions on Mandatory Distribution of ITC U/s 20 CGST Act *  Filing of Annexure-B for Refund Applications involving Accumulated ITC using the offline utility in GST portal: GSTN *  No Service Tax on Parent Company’s Un-Invoiced Cost Allocations Without Actual Service or Consideration: CESTAT  *  Calcutta High Court Upholds GST Classification of Polypropylene Leno Bags as Plastic Products *  DRC-01 Summary Can’t Replace Mandatory SCN: Gauhati High Court *  GSTAT Issues Major Bench Allocation Framework; All Appeals to First Go Before Division Bench *  ITC Blocking Without Reasoned Order Violates Rule 86A; Punjab & Haryana HC Directs Release of Credit *  Allahabad HC Refuses Bail to CGST Superintendent In Rs. 70 Lakh Bribery Case *  S.130 Can’t Be Invoked Without Prior Tax Determination U/s 73/74: Allahabad High Court Quashes GST Confiscation Proceedings *  SC grants Bail to Rs 54cr GST case  *  Karnataka HC Sets Aside Duplicate GST Orders, Orders Fresh Hearing on GSTIN Cancellation *  DRC-01 Summary Can’t Replace Mandatory SCN: Gauhati High Court *  Transfer Of Unutilized ITC After Amalgamation - Supreme Court Issues Notice *  PUNJAB & HARYANA HC QUASHES GST CANCELLATION NOTICE FOR FAILURE TO PROVIDE CBIC ENQUIRY REPORT *  LICENSE FEE, TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE CHARGES NOT INCLUDIBLE IN CUSTOMS VALUE UNLESS THEY ARE A CONDITION OF SALE: CESTAT *  DELHI HC ORDERS REMOVAL OF GST ATTACHMENT AFTER STATUTORY 1 YEAR PERIOD EXPIRED *  CUSTOMS BROKER CAN’T BE FAULTED JUST BECAUSE EXPORTER’S GST REGISTRATION WAS PREVIOUSLY CANCELLED: CESTAT   *  Supreme Court Dismisses Review Plea Against Delhi HC Ruling Holding Real Operator Behind Fake GST Firms Liable As ‘Taxable Person  *  GST Appeal Can’t Be Rejected Merely Because DRC-07 Was Not Uploaded On Portal: Bombay High Court  

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