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 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