The stand of the assessee before the lower authorities that it was inadvertent mistake and there was no mala fide in availing the ineligible excess credit. On perusal of the Show-Cause Notice, we find that the Show Cause Notice only alleges the violation of provisions of Rule 14 of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 read with section 11AB of Finance Act, 1994 (sic). The said Show-Cause Notice does not allege any mala fide on the appellant for availment of excess credit. In our view, having reversed the ineligibly availed the Cenvat credit on being pointed out by the Audit party, the appellant has shown their bona fide on admitting the error. In view of this, we are of the view that the impugned order which upholds the imposition of penalty on the appellant is liable to be set aside and we do so.
Looking to the legislative intent it is not possible to say that the risk covered by insurance service received shall not enjoy Cenvat credit of service tax paid on such service. No doubt, the insurance service may be indirectly connected to the manufacturing or other activity but that may be in relation to manufacture or various other business activities enumerated in Rule 2(l) of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004.
The short issue for consideration is whether the appellants could have paid tax on an exempted services and claimed refund under Notification No. 17/2009 which allows refund of tax paid on services used in or in relation to the export of goods. The learned appellate authority has held that when a service is exempted, the appellant cannot pay the taxes and thereafter claim refund of the same on the ground that it is in connection with export purposes.
I have perused the Management Agent agreement entered into by the appellant with the principal M/s. Titan Industries Ltd. In terms of the agreement, the appellant is required to display, stock and sell jewellery products to the customers through showrooms managed and operated by the agent on stock transfer basis. The design, maintenance and operation of the showrooms has to be undertaken as per the directions of the principal and the insurance cover for the showroom has to be provided by the agent.
As per Article 56 of the Schedule to the ADB Act, the bank, its assets, property, income and its operations and transactions, shall be exempt from all taxation and from all customs duties. The Bank shall also be exempt from any obligation for the payment, withholding or collection of any tax or duty and Section 5 of the ADB Act clearly says that notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in any other law,
It may be stated that the matter of classification was not jurisdiction of a single Member Bench of Tribunal as has been done by order dated 4.5.2006 in ST/03/2006 contrary to mandate of section 129C(4) of Customs Act, 1962 as adopted by section 83 of Finance Act, 1994. So also when service tax demand was Rs. 22,48,432/- (Ref: page 56 of appeal folder) in the earlier adjudication.
In this case, the factory is located in a village and the village does not have adequate facilities for employees and therefore to get the proper employees, it becomes necessary for the assessee to provide transportation facility from the nearest city. Therefore, it cannot be said that the assessee is providing transportation facility to its employees as a welfare measure, but it is necessity to ensure that the manufacture takes place properly. Therefore, in the case before me, it can be said that the service has a relation to the business of manufacture and has a nexus.
The short point in question is whether only a registered trademark has a right under any law for the time being in force In India and whether any law other than enacted law In force In India will come within the meaning of any law for the time being in force.
If there is no transfer of right of possession and effective control of the aircraft to the appellants. However, the findings arrived at by the adjudicating authority clearly point out to one fact that aircraft is required to be maintained, operated and controlled by the appellants. If that be so, at this prima facie stage, we note that the appellants do not satisfy the definition of said service.
Appellant has undertaken the activity of harvesting sugarcane and its transportation to sugar factory from the fields of farmers and this activity is in relation to sale of sugarcane by farmers and purchase of sugarcane by the sugar factory and service provided by a commission agent. In view of this finding, we find that the appellant is entitled for the benefit of Notification No. 13/2003-ST which provides exemption from payment of service tax in respect of service provided under “Business Auxiliary Service” in relation to the sale of agricultural products.
