The appellants shall be eligible for the credit of rent-a-cab service provided, they are able to satisfy that the rent-a-cab service has been utilized for transport of employees/officials or business related visitors to their factory/office. These submissions have not been specifically made before the authorities below, as rightly pointed by the learned Superintendent (AR). Under these circumstances, I deem it appropriate to set aside the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) and remand the matter to the original authority for fresh consideration after granting opportunity to the assessee to produce additional evidence and granting them reasonable opportunity of hearing. All the issues are kept open.
Undisputedly the respondent deposited the amount at the investigation stage and the proceeding initiated against them were dropped by ld. Commissioner (Appeals) vide his order dated 9-2-2011. It is a case of refund of deposit of duty and not a refund of duty therefore the principle of unjust enrichment which is applicable to refund of duty is not applicable in this case.
Income from auction of abandoned cargo not taxable under Storage & Warehousing Services as its a sale – Even though the appellant is the custodian of the goods and not the owner, still transfer to title of the goods takes place during the auction and hence it is to be treated as a sale. The fact of sale is also evident from the sales tax having been paid by the successful bidder. Thus, when the transaction is one of sale and not a service, the question of payment of Service tax will never arise.
MD of the appellant company also performed the job of MD of M/s Brembo Brakes India Ltd. for which he was compensated. If at all, any advisory activity was undertaken by the said person, the demand for Service Tax can be made only on him and not on the appellant. Further, there is no evidence on record to show that the MD of the appellant firm rendered any consultancy/advisory services. He actually functioned as the MD of the other company also, therefore, the remuneration received by him through the appellant company does not come under the category of ‘Management Consultancy Services’ in terms of the Board’s Circular cited above.
It also appears that there is abuse of process of law by mere filing appeal and depriving Revenue to realise its dues availing benefit of interim order. This reason is enough to dismiss the appeals also. Accordingly, both the appeals are dismissed.
Vide section 97 of the Finance Act, 2012, such activity was granted retrospective exemption w.e.f. 16.06.2005 to 26.06.2009. Inasmuch as the period involved in the present matter is from 31.01.2006 up to 18.04.2006, we hold that the appellant is not liable to pay any service tax on the activities of repair and maintenance of roads.
If there is any defect in appeal, in terms of the procedure prescribed by rule 4.03 of Chapter 4 of Judicial Manual, that defect may be intimated to the appellant for curing the same without compulsion since curable defects do not take away right to appeal. Therefore, such valuable right should not be casually denied on flimsy ground of technicalities without scrutiny according to procedure prescribed by Judicial Manual.
CENVAT Credit cannot be denied merely on the ground that HO who raised invoice was not registered under central registration during material period It is to be held that final rejection of centralized registration vide letter dated 26-5-2006 cannot be held to be a justifiable reason for denial of the credit. Apart from the fact that during the said period, the application was pending in the office of Deputy Commissioner, without their being any decision taken by him on the same, 1 find that there is otherwise no dispute about the availability of the credit to the appellant. The substantial benefit, if otherwise available, cannot be denied on the technical and procedural grounds. As such, in the absence of any dispute that the appellant was otherwise entitled to the benefit of Cenvat credit of Service Tax paid on GTA services, so received by them, the denial of the same on the ground that the credit was availed on the basis of invoices raised by their head office is neither justifiable nor warranted.
It was submitted by the learned A.R. that the appellant company being a limited company is not covered by the term association and exemption available is only to the association. However, it was pointed out by the learned counsel that the appellant is registered under Section 25 of the Companies Act, 1956 which provides that the word “limited” can be dispensed with in respect of an association formed as a limited company for promoting commerce, art, science, religion, charity or any other object.
After considering the submissions, we note that the impugned demand of service tax and education cess is not under any determinate head of taxable service. No breakup of the gross value for different categories mentioned in the impugned order is forthcoming. Apparently, the appropriate taxable service was not identified either in the show-cause notice or in the impugned order. A demand of service tax without correct classification of the taxable service is alien to the scheme of service tax levy.
