Payments made for transmission of electricity by the transmission lines owned by PGCIL do not constitute payment for rent under section 194-I, it is not really necessary to go into this aspect of the matter. The question as to whether the definition of expression rent, introduced in section 194-I with effect from July 2006, is prospective or clarificatory is also, given our findings that, even on the touchstone of the definition of rent under the aforesaid provision, the payment for transmission of power will not constitute rent, not really relevant in the present context, and we see no need to deal with the same either.
Assessee entered into an agreement with M/s Reddy Structures Pvt. Ltd., for development and building of the housing project on the land belonging to him. The assessee contributed the land, undertook the developmental activities in the said land and thus complied with all other conditions which have to be fulfilled before claiming the benefit u/s 80IB(10) of the Act. In the present case, it was agreed that after completion of the building in terms of the agreement, the assessee was given 24% of the share of the building area which he was entitled to sell to various persons, it was also clear from the joint development agreement that the undertaking of developing and building housing project was jointly undertaken by the assessee and M/s Reddy Structures Pvt. Ltd., therefore, the assessee was entitled for the benefit of deduction u/s 80IB(10) of the Act.
With reference to the income treated as’income from other sources’, the CIT (A) analyzed the position of the income and noticed that it comprises of bad debts, miscellaneous receipts written back which were to be taxed under section 41(1) of the I.T. Act. With reference to the gratuity written back, he observed that assessee made provision for gratuity in earlier years which was not allowed as expenditure. Hence the write back of the same cannot be considered as income.
On reading of Section 10 (15A) of the Act it is apparent to us that for this Section, an Indian company engaged in the business of operation of aircrafts should have acquired aircraft(s) on lease under an agreement. It is only when an Indian company acquires aircraft on lease under an agreement, which was entered into on or before the 1st day of April, 2007, benefit under the said Section is available. Thus, the twin conditions; that the agreement should have been entered into on or before 1st April, 2007 and there should be acquisition of aircraft under the lease before the said date, have to be satisfied.
Mere publication of name of the company and name of the product along with details relating to price, packaging and dosage would not promote the sale or marketing of the product but the information would be of use only for the chemists/druggists. In fact that information would not be of use even to the chemist who was required to dispense medicines in the shop.
Provision of Section 73(3) and explanation (ii) to said Section (which was introduced from 8.5.10), specifically indicate that if Service Tax liability and interest thereof stand deposited, there is no need for issuing Show-Cause Notice even for penalty. I find that the ld. Counsel was correct in relying upon the judgment in the case of Krishna Security & Detective Services (supra). Provisions of Section 73(3) are very clear and the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Krishna Security & Detective Services (supra) also lay down the ratio that no penalty can be imposed if the Service Tax liability and interest thereof stand deposited under the Section 73(3).
The appellant filed this appeal against the impugned order whereby the demand of service tax on the ground that the appellants, for the purpose of paying service tax, did not include the value of materials used by them for providing such service. The contention of the appellant is that demand is time-barred as the show-cause notice was issued on 22.9.2006 demanding service tax for the period 16.7.2001 to 31.3.2005 by invoking extended period on the ground of suppression. The appellant submitted that the Tribunal, in CCE v. R.K. Photo studio vide Final Order Nos. ST/503-504/2011 dated 25.8.2011, after taking into consideration the Board Circular F. No. 233/2/2003-CX dated 7.4.2004, held that the demand beyond the normal period is not sustainable, in such type of case.
Even if it was accepted that the canteen service provided by the assessee was necessary for improving the efficiency of the worker and the same was eligible for Cenvat credit but in terms of Larger Bench decision in the case of CCE v. GTC Industries Ltd. [2008] 17 STT 63 (Mum. – CESTAT) there is no dispute about the fact that as part of the cost of providing canteen service had been recovered from the workers and to that extent the assessee would not be eligible for the Cenvat credit.
Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Singh Enterprises v. Commissioner 2005 (189) ETL A-113 (SC) has held that Commissioner (Appeals) has no power to condone the delay beyond the period of 90 days. We also refer to a listed decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Rajasthan Mechanical Works vide which Delhi High Court judgement was upheld.
There is no dispute about role of consignment agent attributing to the promotion of the sale. Once sale promotion falls within Rule 2 (l) of Cenvat Credit Rules 2004, admissibility of cenvat credit of the service tax paid in respect of such service availed is permissible.
