The gist of the above averments is that the concerned person dealing with the matter in the appellant’s office received the orders and kept the same with him and forgot to hand it over to the appellant. The identity of “the concerned person dealing with the matter is not forthcoming. The appellant is a corporate entity and hence the concerned person dealing with the matter must be an employee of the company.
The second objection of the department is that the appellant do not satisfy the conditions no. 2(e) of 12/05 ST regarding non-availment of cenvat credit. The appellant’s plea from the very beginning has been that they have never availed cenvat credit either in respect of inputs or input services and that they have been claiming filing only the rebate in respect of input/input services from time to time and that in the ST-3 Return for October 2010 – March, 2011 the rebate claim had been mentioned as cenvat credit availed by mistake.
The Notification in question clearly requires an assessee to file refund claim on quarterly basis within a period of 60 days from the end of relevant quarter during which the goods stands exported. Such period prescribed by the notification cannot be extended by courts working within the parameters of the excise laws.
CESTAT Bangalore dismisses Ambience Constructions’ appeal on service tax refund, ruling it time-barred. Details of the case and key arguments provided.
CESTAT, BANGALORE BENCH Wadpack (P.) Ltd. Versus Commissioner of Central Excise FINAL ORDER NO. 700 OF 2012 CENTRAL EXCISE APPEAL NO. 637 OF 2010 NOVEMBER 5, 2012 ORDER 1. In this appeal filed by the assessee, the short question is whether, for the period from April 2005 to June 2007, the appellant was entitled to […]
There is one more ground on which the refund claim has been rejected i.e. prior to 16.05.2006 the appellant did not have registration as an input service distributor and hence the appellant could not have availed service tax credit on ISD basis. However, what is required to be seen is whether the appellant received the services at Nasik and if so the appellant used the same for rendering of the output service. These facts need to be verified by the revenue instead of summarily rejecting the claim.
In the case of consideration received for freight we are of the prima facie view that ocean freight was not liable to service tax. While there are specific entries in Finance Act, 1994 levying tax on transportation of goods by road, rail, aircraft, pipeline etc. there is no entry levying tax on transportation by sea. It has to be reasonably presumed that this is kept outside the tax net and it cannot be taxed under a general entry like business support services. Further it appears that such services are rendered in respect of export cargo.
Appellant had supplied the tool kit as per statutory requirements under Central Motor Vehicle Rules, 1989 as accessories to be used in relation to the manufacture of vehicle. Thus, ‘tool kit’ in our view is squarely covered by the definition of ‘input’ given under Rule 2(k)(i) of Cenvat Credit Rules and that the appellant had rightly availed the Cenvat credit in relation to tool kits. I
If the appellant have paid the service tax they are entitled to take credit of the same. In that view, it cannot be said that by suppressing the fact that the appellants are going to get extra benefit on account suppression. In view of these observations and following the decision in the case of Amman Steel Corpn. (supra), I am of the view that penalty under Section 78 of the Finance Act is not sustainable.
We have not found prima facie case for the appellant insofar as the demand of service tax on life membership fees is concerned. Though it has been claimed that such fees are refundable as per the by-laws of the appellant, the claim is yet to be substantiated. We have not been shown a copy of the by-laws.
