TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Cenvat Credit Case: Employee Services and Debit Notes</h1> <h3>M/s Ultra Tech Cement Ltd. Versus Commissioner of Central Tax – Tirupati - GST</h3> M/s Ultra Tech Cement Ltd. Versus Commissioner of Central Tax – Tirupati - GST - 2020 (38) G.S.T.L. 70 (Tri. - Hyd.) Issues:1. Availment of Cenvat credit on input services meant for personal use of employees.2. Availment of Cenvat credit based on debit notes.Issue 1: Availment of Cenvat credit on input services meant for personal use of employees:The appellant, a Public Limited Company registered for service tax, availed Cenvat credit on input services like internet, mobile, D2H, insurance, and mediclaim for employees' personal use. The department alleged the credit was wrongly availed under Rule 2(l) of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004, and sought recovery under Rule 14 and section 73 of the Finance Act, 1994. The appellant contended that employees were service recipients, not just employees, as they paid for the services, and the appellant paid service tax on the amounts collected. The appellant cited a draft CBEC circular to support their argument that services provided to employees for consideration are eligible for credit. The department argued that personal use services are excluded from input services and relied on a Tribunal judgment. The Member found in favor of the appellant, emphasizing that employees were service recipients, not just employees, and the appellant was entitled to credit for services provided to them.Issue 2: Availment of Cenvat credit based on debit notes:The appellant raised debit notes on employees to recover amounts for services provided, but did not avail Cenvat credit based on these notes. The department contended otherwise, but the Member found that the appellant did not avail credit based on debit notes. Consequently, the demand was deemed unsustainable, and the impugned order was set aside, allowing the appeal with any consequential relief.In conclusion, the judgment favored the appellant, ruling that Cenvat credit on services provided to employees for consideration was permissible, and credit was not availed based on debit notes. The Member set aside the demand and allowed the appeal with any necessary relief.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
