The Hon’ble Supreme Court relying on the decision in case of Commissioner of Central Excise, Jaipur II Vs. Super Syncotex (India Ltd.)[2014 301 ELT 273 (S.C.)], held that after July 1, 2000, Sales tax portion collected but not paid to State Government on account of incentive scheme will form part of the transaction value of excisable goods and observed that:
On coating uncoated paper, an article with different name commercially may have emerged but it is not a distinct article with different character or use and therefore no manufacturing process was involved when uncoated printing and writing paper is coated.
Issue involved in the instant case was, whether penalty under Rule 15(2) of the Credit Rules/ Rule 13 of the Credit Rules, 2002 and Section 11AC of the Excise Act is leviable, when the Department denied the irregular Cenvat credit taken by Flextronics Technologies (India) (P.) Ltd. (‘the Respondent’ or “’the Assessee’) after audit was conducted at their premises.
Facts of the case are that, Srinivasa Enterprises (‘the Petitioner’ or ‘the Assessee’) rented out its property to State VAT Department and collected Service tax thereon and paid same to Service Tax Department. Later on, the Assessee and State VAT Department came to know that renting of immovable property to State Government (VAT Department) was not taxable.
No Mandatory Pre-deposit for pursuing the Appellate remedy before the CESTAT as right of appeal for any case instituted prior to August 6, 2014 and such case is governed by the law prevailing at the date of institution of the suit or proceeding
A raid under Section 82 of the Finance Act was carried out in the premises of the Exman Security Services Pvt. Ltd. (the Petitioner) on March 25, 2014. Statement under Section 14 of the Excise Act was recorded of the Managing Director of the Petitioner wherein it was submitted that Service tax liability of the Petitioner exist but amount calculation will be provided later.
In the Union Budget, 2015 vide Notification No. 06/2015-C.E. (N.T.) dated March 1, 2015 (Effective from March 1, 2015), Export goods have been defined by inserting a Clause (1A) in Explanation 1 to Rule 5 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004, which is reproduced as under:
Cenvat credit allowed on civil construction services for construction of factory shed, which is falling under setting up of factory premises- Commissioner of Central Excise, Delhi III, Gurgaon Vs. KML Molding [2015-VIL-171-CESTAT-DEL-CE]
Investigation of the Appellant was initiated on November 26, 2007 by the officers of DGCEI and it was alleged that the financial support given to Appellant by RCM in terms of the Master Service Agreement dated April 10, 2007 (the Agreement) was in the nature of advance for the taxable services rendered or to be rendered by the Appellant to RCM and is required to be set off against the bills that would be raised later by the Appellant on RCM.
Shravan Banarasilal Jejani (the Appellant) is the owner of the residential flats sold to them by the builder who paid Service tax on the residential flats. However, in terms of the Circular No. 108/2/2009-ST dated January 29, 2009 (the Circular), there was no Service tax liability on sale of the residential flats on the Appellant.
