Chartered Accountant
Bookmark and Share
click here to subscribe our newsletter
 
 
Corporate News *  The GSTN has issued an Advisory dated 21.04.2026 about the introduction of an Offline Tool for the Invoice Management System (IMS)  *  CBIC extends due dates for filing of FORM GSTR 3B  for the month of April 2026 *  Interest cannot be imposed in adjudication order, if not demanded/quantified in show cause notice : Allahabad HC *  Wheelchairs with toileting facility eligible for exemption: CESTAT affirms customs duty exemption to importer *  Industries urge GST council to allow inverted duty refunds on input services *  Tamil Nadu GST dept introduced virtual hearing facility for GST appeals under under section 107 of the TNGST act: detailed guidelines  *  CIC urges authorities to implement GST evasion complaint tracking system *  Even if the assessee opts "NO" for personal hearing in form DRC-06 ,The mandatory requirement under section 75(4) to grant opportunity of hearing cannot be waived:Gujarat High Court  *  Glufosinate imports curbs imposed by govt *  Government extends Re-import period for exported cut & polished diamonds *  CIC flags lack of tracking system for tax evasion complaints,urges GST authorities to improve transparency *  No Custodial Interrogation needed in GST fraud case based on documentary evidence already in Department's Possession : Chattisgarh HC *  Orders under section cannot be sustained if passed without considering the taxpayer's objections and without granting a personal hearing:Gujarat High Court *  Mere cancellation of supplier's registration cannot,by itself,justify denial of ITC or cancellation of the recipient's registration:Bombay High Court *  High Court sets aside GST notice citing factual errors and natural justice violations *  Provisional Bank Attachment under Section. 110 of Customs Act Unsustainable Beyond Statutory period without Extension order: Bombay HC orders to defreeze accounts *  Post Clearance MRP Alteration by Distributor Does not attract Differential Customs Duty: CESTAT *  DGFT Expands scope of 'Screws' classification under RoDTEP Scheme  *  E-way bills surze to all time high of 140.6 million in March *  GST Exemption Allowed on Pure Labour Services for Standalone Houses: AAR  *  GST Payable Only on Margin in Second-Hand Car Sales, Subject to Strict Conditions and No ITC Claim: AAR *  DGFT rolls out procedure for allocation of calcined coke *  GST portal update : Pre-deposit amount now editable in Appeals *  J&K HC declared TMT scrap a 'Specified Good' eligibile for GST refunds under Support Scheme  *  Pigmy agents are employees of banks; no GST can be levied on commission  paid to them : Karnataka HC *  DGFT Revises HS Code Description for Screws Under RoDTEP *  GST Registration Cancellation Invalid Without Proper Service of Notice: Allahabad High Court. *  Bengaluru CGST | GST Backlog Appeals Deadline Fixed at June 30, 2026 *  No Time Bar on Refund of Service Tax for Services Not Rendered: CESTAT  Remands Indiabulls Case for Unjust Enrichment Check. *  Supreme Court Holds Renewable Energy Incentive Must Benefit Generators, Not Be Adjusted in Tariff
Subject News *   Delhi HC Quashes Order, Says Reminder Cannot Validate Improperly Served GST SCN *  KARNATAKA HIGH COURT REMANDS GST SHORTFALL MATTER DUE TO ABSENCE OF PERSONAL HEARING   *  CESTAT cancels confiscation and penalties on imported computer cabinet cases: Custom duty restricted to 111 surplus units *  Deposit of tax during search or investigation cannot be treated as 'Voluntary Payment' : Bombay High Court *  Section 76 of the CGST cannot be invoked where the tax has already been duly deposited, even if through another registration of the same entity: Madras High Court *  Sec 74 allows use of material regardless of source; illegality or flaws in section 67 search do not vitiate valid adjudication: HC *  Inter-State transfer of ITC on Amalgamation permissible as given under section 18(3) read with rule 41 of the CGST rules, 2017: Gujarat High Court *  HC: No GST on commisson paid to Pigmy Agents *  IGST refund denial on illegible bill of lading invalid absent chance to furnish docs; merit reconsideration in appeals directed: HC *  ITC is not admissible on GST paid on leasehold rights of land used fpr setting up an air seperation plant: AAAR,Tamil Nadu *  GST: No penalty under Section 74 after voluntary ITC reversal due to non-existent supplier : High Court *  TN AAAR denies GST ITC on Land Lease under Sec. 17(5)(d) for setting up plant and machinery *  GST proceedings quashed as notices sent to old address, despite updated address in registration *  Importer Can’t Be Penalised for Alleged IGCR Procedural Lapses Without Evidence of Departmental Error: CESTAT *  Structured Healthcare Training Not ‘Charitable Activity’, 18% GST Payable: AAR  *  CESTAT As The Appellate Authority For Central Sales Tax Disputes: A Paradigm Shift Under Finance Act, 2023 *   Rs. 25K Cost Imposed On SGST Joint Commissioner for Attaching Bank  Accounts Without Forming Mandatory “Opinion”: Bombay HC *   Ex-Parte GST Order Without Hearing Violates Natural Justice: Karnataka  High Court Quashes Adjudication and Bank Attachment.  *   Retrospective GST Cancellation Can’t Invalidate Genuine Transactions:  Jaipur Commissioner (Appeals) Quashes Rs. 95,670 ITC Demand. *   GST Pre-Deposit Non-Compliance: Allahabad High Court Allows Appeal  Subject to Rs. 30 Lakh Balance Deposit, Recognises Offline Filing. *  Documentary Nature of Evidence: Allahabad High Court Grants Bail in Rs. 32.66 Crore Fake ITC Fraud Case *  Supreme Court Flags Systemic Bias in Army’s Permanent Commission Process for Women Officers *  Re-Determination of Land Compensation Can Be Based on Appellate Court Awards, Clarifies Scope of S. 28-A: Supreme Court. *  Supreme Court Imposes Rs. 5 Lakh Costs On Rent Authority Officer For Acting Beyond Jurisdiction. *  DGGI Meerut | Court Denies Bail to Accused in Claiming Fake ITC And Export Refunds *  Denial of GST Rate Revision Benefit to Contractor Violates Article 14: Rajasthan HC *  GST Registration Cancellation for Non-Filing of Returns: Gauhati High Court Directs Restoration on Compliance. *   Supreme Court Quashes FEMA Adjudication Orders, Revives Proceedings at  Show Cause Stage. *   Higher Rank, Harsher Punishment Justified: Supreme Court Restores Dismissal  of Bank Manager in Misappropriation Case. *   Limitation for Export Refund to Be Counted from Foreign Exchange Realisation,  Not From Export Invoices Issuance: CESTAT  

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