News Update

FM reviews CAPEX of CPSEsGovt writes to over 2800 corporates to clear MSME duesGovt carrying out reforms in every sector of economy to prop up growth: PMIgnoring limitation proves costlyInverted duty structure - A Case study (See 'TOG Insight' in Taxongo.com)CBIC promotes four officers as Pr Commissioner of Customs & Central Excise + posts Sameer Pandey as DS in GST Council SecretariatSC cannot be a place for Govts to walk in when they choose, ignoring period of limitation prescribed - Petition dismissed as time barred; costs imposed on State for wasting judicial time - amount to be recovered from officers responsible: SCIs penalty compulsorily attracted on late payment of GST?No mutation of COVID-19 detected in India: Health MinisterCus - Goods re-imported for repair and re-exported - Merely because Assessee could claim duty drawback later on and it may give rise to a revenue neutral situation, it cannot be said that period of one year prescribed in 158/95-Cus is without any meaning: HCST - Payment of mobilization advance is a separate financial transaction within contract for providing of service & so is not to be included in gross taxable value as per Section 67 of Finance Act 1994 - duty demand cannot be raised thereon when there is no allegation of any part of contracted value having evaded taxation: CESTATBSVI introduction a revolutionary step: JavadekarCX - It is settled position in law that an assessee is entitled to interest on delayed disbursal of refund after three months from date of filing of refund claim till date of its realisation: CESTATCus - Drawback - After turning down request for taking test samples, Revenue cannot brush aside report given by an expert Committee simply for the reason that sample was not drawn and referred by Department: CESTATPayment made to a trust formed for the benefit of employees of the company, of which the assessee was a shareholder & whose shares the assessee had sold, does not qualify as expenditure incurred wholly in connection with transfer of asset: HCBogus purchases - only the profit element embedded therein is to be disallowed, rather than the entire quantum of purchases made: ITATSearch assessment is invalid where it is completed even before search operations are conducted or where any material incriminating the assessee has not yet been found: ITATWhere assessee did not claim exemption in respect of one residential property, the assessee can avail such benefit in respect of a second house or plot of land: ITATIndia successfully test-fires cruise missile from Indian Navy’s destroyer INS ChennaiCOVID-19: Global tally goes past FOUR Crore with 11.15 lakh deaths; America has close to 27 lakh active cases against 8 lakh in IndiaCOVID-19 - Almost 80% new cases coming from 10 StatesCountrywide S&T infrastructure facilities to be accessible to industry & startups: GovtPM calls for speedy access to vaccines once readyNew Zealand PM earns second term for managing COVID-19 wellDigital Media - Govt to extend all benefits available to othersGovt not considering any DA for Govt employees: GangwarCBDT issues transfer order of 395 Addl / JCITs on All India basisSBI given nod for sale of electoral bonds for 10 daysEducation CESS - the spoilt fruit
 
ABC of Rule 6 - What is P??

MARCH 3, 2008

By R Raghavendra Rao

THE obligation of the manufacturer of dutiable and exempted goods under Rule 6 of the Cenvat Credit Rules has always been a matter of dispute. Where the assessees do not maintain separate accounts for the inputs used in exempted goods and dutiable goods, the demands made at the rate 10% on the value of the exempted goods did not stand the judicial scrutiny in cases where the proportionate credit was reversed instead of paying 10%, following the ratio of Supreme Court ruling in Chandrapur Magnet Wires (P) Ltd (2002-TIOL-41-SC-CX). The latest amendment made to Rule 6 of the Cenvat Credit Rules appears to be aimed at giving effect to the Chandrapur Magnet ratio by providing an option to the manufacturers /service providers to reverse the proportionate credit or to pay 10% or 8% on the value of the exempted goods/services, as the case may be. The rule contains several formulae represented by letters of the English alphabet from A to P. For easy understanding,  the letters and what they represent are tabulated as under:

Letter

What it means

A

CENVAT credit attributable to inputs used in or in relation to manufacture of exempted goods in a month

B

Total value of exempted services provided during the preceding financial year.

C

total value of dutiable goods manufactured and removed plus the total value of taxable services provided plus the total value of exempted services provided, during the preceding financial year

D

total CENVAT credit taken on inputs during the month minus A.

E

total value of exempted services provided plus the total value of exempted goods manufactured and removed during the preceding
financial year

F

total value of taxable and exempted services provided and total value of dutiable and exempted goods manufactured and removed, during the preceding financial year

G

total CENVAT credit taken on input services during the month

H

the amount of CENVAT credit attributable to inputs used in or in relation to manufacture of exempted goods in the current financial year.

I

Missing…..????? unintentional???

J

the total value of exempted services provided during the current financial year

K

the total value of dutiable goods manufactured and removed plus the total value of taxable services provided plus the total value of exempted services provided, during the current financial year

L

total CENVAT credit taken on inputs during the current financial year minus H

M

total value of taxable and exempted services provided, and total value of dutiable and exempted goods manufactured and removed, during the current financial year

N

total CENVAT credit taken on input services during the current financial year

O

Missing…..not used

P

Used in the Rule, but not explained what is P….

Upto L, the rule is clear and understandable, but when it comes to M, N and P, there is a mix up in drafting. M,N and P are parallel annual figures for E,F and G which are used for provisionally determining the monthly credit payable on the input services used in exempted goods and services.  Therefore the correct position should be:

M

total value of exempted services provided plus the total value of exempted goods manufactured and removed during the current
financial year

N

total value of taxable and exempted services provided, and total value of dutiable and exempted goods manufactured and removed, during the current financial year

P

Total credit availed on the input services during the current financial year.

The relevant sub-rule 3A(c) reads now as under:

(iii) the amount attributable to input services used in or in relation to manufacture of exempted goods or provision of exempted services = (M/N) multiplied by P, where L denotes total value of exempted services provided plus the total value of exempted goods manufactured and removed during the financial year, M denotes total value of taxable and exempted services provided, and total value of dutiable and exempted goods manufactured and removed, during the financial year, and N denotes total CENVAT credit taken on input services during the financial year;

This should read as:

(iii) the amount attributable to input services used in or in relation to manufacture of exempted goods or provision of exempted services = (M/N) multiplied by P, where M denotes total value of exempted services provided plus the total exempted goods manufactured and removed during the financial year, N denotes total value of taxable and exempted services provided, and total value of dutiable and exempted goods manufactured and removed, during the financial year, and P denotes total CENVAT credit taken on input services during the financial year;

Therefore an immediate amendment is required in the above rule.

Further, there is also a need to have a re-look at D which has been defined as the credit taken on the inputs during the month minus A (credit attributable to the inputs used in the manufacture of exempted goods during the month). Since the inputs on which credit is taken during the month are not used completely in the same month, it may be appropriate to define D as total credit attributable to the inputs used in the manufacture of final products during the month minus the credit attributable to the inputs used in the manufacture of exempted goods.

The provisional monthly amount payable has to be worked out as under :

1. Inputs used in exempted goods

A

2. Inputs used in exempted services

(B/C)XD

3. Input services used in exempted  goods/services

(E/F)XG

In respect of amount payable on the input services, in case 3 above, G has been defined as the total cenvat credit taken on the input services during the month. In effect, the amount to be reversed will be based on the ratio of the value of the exempted services /goods to the total value of the goods/services. However, sub-rule 5 of Rule 6 provides that full credit is allowed on certain common services used notwithstanding the sub-rules 1,2 and 3. Now, these amounts will also have to be included for arriving at G above, which means that the full credit allowed under sub-rule 5 on common services will also be divided now in the ratio of E/F. Therefore the formula in third case is in direct conflict with sub-rule 5 and G may have to be redefined.

(All See related analysis - Rule 6 Calculus)

(The views expressed by the author are personal)


POST YOUR COMMENTS