kumar mayank (Professional) (35 Points)
18 July 2010whether cenvat credit on mobile phones provided to employees be allowed to a manufacturing concern , similarly service tax on courier charges and advertisement expense be allowed as credit covering under - "services used in relation to manufacturing of products" .Quote the recent notification\circular.
EKALABYA TALUKDAR
(SERVICE TAX CONSULTANT)
(666 Points)
Replied 19 July 2010
.
YES
.
THE PHONE OR MOBILE NO SHOULD BE IN THE NAME OF COMPALY
OR
THE PHONE OR MOBILE NO SHOULD BE IN THE NAME OF DIRECTOR / PARTNER / PROPRITOR
AND
THE PHONE SHOULD BE POST PAID WITH VALID PAYMENT OPTION
.
CS Vijay Daxini
(At Practice)
(732 Points)
Replied 21 July 2010
thanks for sharing but plz quote recent circula or noyification or case laws for having in depth understanding..........
S. Banerjee
(Practising Cost Accountant. Core area- Central Excise. Service Tax Costing system installation including maintenance of Cost Records and Cost Audit and Management Audit mainly Revenue leakages Audit)
(622 Points)
Replied 21 July 2010
| Originally posted by : kumar mayank | ||
 |
whether cenvat credit on mobile phones provided to employees be allowed to a manufacturing concern , similarly service tax on courier charges and advertisement expense be allowed as credit covering under - "services used in relation to manufacturing of products" .Quote the recent notification\circular. |
 |
Cenvat Credit on mobile telephone which is using in Office only is allowed. It is suggested to avail Cenvat Credit on all Telephone bills including Mobile Phones (w.e.f 10.09.2004), which are used in relation to business.
Earlier Service Tax Credit Rules required ‘installation’ of telephones. Hence CBE&C had clarified vide circular No. 59/8/2003 – ST dated 20.06.2003 that Cenvat credit will not be available in case of mobile phones. Now there is no such requirement, Hence service tax paid on mobile phones will be eligible for Cenvat credit w.e.f. 10.09.2004, so long as they are used in relation to business – view confirmed in Indian Rayaon v CCE 2007 (6) STT 328 (CESTAT SMB).
Hope this will serve your purpose.,
Thanks, S. Banerjee
CAclubindia
