Just a moment...

Top
FeedbackReport
×

By creating an account you can:

Logo TaxTMI
>
Feedback/Report an Error
Email :
Please provide your email address so we can follow up on your feedback.
Category :
Description :
Min 15 characters0/2000
Make Most of Text Search
  1. Checkout this video tutorial: How to search effectively on TaxTMI.
  2. Put words in double quotes for exact word search, eg: "income tax"
  3. Avoid noise words such as : 'and, of, the, a'
  4. Sort by Relevance to get the most relevant document.
  5. Press Enter to add multiple terms/multiple phrases, and then click on Search to Search.
  6. Text Search
  7. The system will try to fetch results that contains ALL your words.
  8. Once you add keywords, you'll see a new 'Search In' filter that makes your results even more precise.
  9. Text Search
Add to...
You have not created any category. Kindly create one to bookmark this item!
Create New Category
Hide
Title :
Description :
❮❮ Hide
Default View
Expand ❯❯
Close ✕
🔎 Case Laws - Adv. Search
TEXT SEARCH:

Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search

Search In:
Main Text + AI Text
  • Main Text
  • Main Text + AI Text
  • AI Text
  • Title Only
  • Head Notes
  • Citation
Party Name: ?
Party name / Appeal No.
Law:
---- All Laws----
  • ---- All Laws----
  • GST
  • Income Tax
  • Benami Property
  • Customs
  • Corporate Laws
  • Securities / SEBI
  • Insolvency & Bankruptcy
  • FEMA
  • Law of Competition
  • PMLA
  • Service Tax
  • Central Excise
  • CST, VAT & Sales Tax
  • Wealth tax
  • Indian Laws
Courts: ?
Select Court or Tribunal
---- All Courts ----
  • ---- All Courts ----
  • Supreme Court - All
  • Supreme Court
  • SC Orders / Highlights
  • High Court
  • Appellate Tribunal
  • Tribunal
  • Appellate authority for Advance Ruling
  • Advance Ruling Authority
  • National Financial Reporting Authority
  • Competition Commission of India
  • ANTI-PROFITEERING AUTHORITY
  • Commission
  • Central Government
  • Board
  • DISTRICT/ SESSIONS Court
  • Commissioner / Appellate Authority
  • Other
Situ: ?
State Name or City name of the Court
Landmark: ?
Where case is referred in other cases
---- All Cases ----
  • ---- All Cases ----
  • Referred in >= 3 Cases
  • Referred in >= 4 Cases
  • Referred in >= 5 Cases
  • Referred in >= 10 Cases
  • Referred in >= 15 Cases
  • Referred in >= 25 Cases
  • Referred in >= 50 Cases
  • Referred in >= 100 Cases
From Date: ?
Date of order
To Date:
TMI Citation:
Year
  • Year
  • 2025
  • 2024
  • 2023
  • 2022
  • 2021
  • 2020
  • 2019
  • 2018
  • 2017
  • 2016
  • 2015
  • 2014
  • 2013
  • 2012
  • 2011
  • 2010
  • 2009
  • 2008
  • 2007
  • 2006
  • 2005
  • 2004
  • 2003
  • 2002
  • 2001
  • 2000
  • 1999
  • 1998
  • 1997
  • 1996
  • 1995
  • 1994
  • 1993
  • 1992
  • 1991
  • 1990
  • 1989
  • 1988
  • 1987
  • 1986
  • 1985
  • 1984
  • 1983
  • 1982
  • 1981
  • 1980
  • 1979
  • 1978
  • 1977
  • 1976
  • 1975
  • 1974
  • 1973
  • 1972
  • 1971
  • 1970
  • 1969
  • 1968
  • 1967
  • 1966
  • 1965
  • 1964
  • 1963
  • 1962
  • 1961
  • 1960
  • 1959
  • 1958
  • 1957
  • 1956
  • 1955
  • 1954
  • 1953
  • 1952
  • 1951
  • 1950
  • 1949
  • 1948
  • 1947
  • 1946
  • 1945
  • 1944
  • 1943
  • 1942
  • 1941
  • 1940
  • 1939
  • 1938
  • 1937
  • 1936
  • 1935
  • 1934
  • 1933
  • 1932
  • 1931
  • 1930
Volume
  • Volume
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7
  • 8
  • 9
  • 10
  • 11
  • 12
TMI
Example : 2024 (6) TMI 204
By Case ID:

When case Id is present, search is done only for this

Sort By: ?
Even if Sort by Date is selected, exact match will be shown on the top.
RelevanceDate
    No Records Found
    ❯❯
    MaximizeMaximizeMaximize
    0 / 200
    Expand Note
    Add to Folder

    No Folders have been created

      +

      Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?

      NOTE:

      Case Laws
      Showing Results for :
      Reset Filters
      Results Found:
      AI TextQuick Glance by AIHeadnote
      No Records Found

      Case Laws

      Back

      All Case Laws

      Showing Results for :
      Reset Filters
      Showing
      Records
      ExpandCollapse
        No Records Found

        Case Laws

        Back

        All Case Laws

        Showing Results for : Reset Filters
        Case ID :

        📋
        Contents
        Note

        Note

        Note

        Bookmark

        print

        Print

        Login to TaxTMI
        Verification Pending

        The Email Id has not been verified. Click on the link we have sent on

        Didn't receive the mail? Resend Mail

        Don't have an account? Register Here

        Bank loan pre-payment penalties don't qualify for CENVAT credit as no service tax applies under Rule 3

        Global Nonwovens Limited (Now Global Nonwovens – Division of Jindal Poly Films Ltd.) Versus Commissioner of Central Goods and Service Tax Nashik Commissionerate

        Global Nonwovens Limited (Now Global Nonwovens – Division of Jindal Poly Films Ltd.) Versus Commissioner of Central Goods and Service Tax Nashik ... ISSUES PRESENTED and CONSIDERED

        The core legal question considered by the Tribunal was whether the appellants, M/s Global Nonwovens Limited, were entitled to avail CENVAT credit on the service tax paid on foreclosure charges or pre-payment premiums related to loans taken from a consortium of banks. This issue involves interpreting the definition of 'input service' under Rule 2(l) of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004, and determining if the foreclosure charges qualify as such.

        ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS

        Relevant legal framework and precedents:

        The relevant legal framework includes the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004, particularly Rule 2(l), which defines 'input service,' and Rule 3, which allows manufacturers or service providers to avail CENVAT credit. Additionally, the Finance Act, 1994, particularly Section 66E, which lists 'declared services,' is pertinent. The Tribunal also referenced the Larger Bench decision in the case of Repco Home Finance Ltd., which addressed the nature of foreclosure charges.

        Court's interpretation and reasoning:

        The Tribunal examined whether the foreclosure charges could be considered an 'input service' under Rule 2(l) of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004. It noted that while the activity of pre-closure is a service under Section 66E(e) of the Finance Act, 1994, it does not qualify as an 'input service' because it does not contribute to the manufacture of final products or the provision of output services. The Tribunal relied on the Repco Home Finance Ltd. decision, which concluded that foreclosure charges are not subject to service tax under 'banking and other financial services.'

        Key evidence and findings:

        The Tribunal considered the loan agreements between the appellants and the consortium of banks, which included clauses on pre-payment and foreclosure charges. It found that these charges were not related to the financing services provided by the banks but were instead compensation for the loss of interest due to premature loan termination.

        Application of law to facts:

        The Tribunal applied the legal definitions and precedents to the facts of the case, concluding that the foreclosure charges did not qualify as 'input services' because they were not related to the manufacturing process or output services. Instead, they were seen as compensatory charges for the banks, not directly linked to the appellants' business activities.

        Treatment of competing arguments:

        The appellants argued that the foreclosure charges were part of the financial services availed for their manufacturing business and thus qualified as input services. They cited various judgments to support their claim. However, the Tribunal rejected these arguments, emphasizing the distinction between services directly related to manufacturing and those merely compensatory in nature.

        Conclusions:

        The Tribunal concluded that the foreclosure charges did not qualify as 'input services' under Rule 2(l) of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004, and thus the appellants were not entitled to avail CENVAT credit on the service tax paid on these charges.

        SIGNIFICANT HOLDINGS

        The Tribunal upheld the decision of the Commissioner (Appeals) and the original authority, confirming the denial of CENVAT credit on the service tax paid on foreclosure charges. It emphasized that foreclosure charges are not 'input services' as they do not contribute to the manufacture of final products or the provision of output services.

        Core principles established:

        The decision reinforced the principle that not all services related to financial transactions qualify as 'input services' for CENVAT credit purposes. Only those services that directly relate to the manufacture of goods or provision of output services are eligible.

        Final determinations on each issue:

        The Tribunal determined that the foreclosure charges were compensatory in nature and not related to the appellants' manufacturing activities. As such, the service tax paid on these charges was not eligible for CENVAT credit. The appeal filed by the appellants was dismissed, and the impugned order dated 12.11.2021 was upheld.

        Topics

        ActsIncome Tax
        No Records Found