No GTA services if custodial rights not transferred to transporter : The terms of the contract showed that this was a case where the operator was responsible only for the vehicle and there were no custodial rights or responsibilities in matter of goods carried. Since the assessee was responsible for the goods transported, consignment note, which is a document of title to the goods, was not issued.
The ratio based on areas developed in SEZ and outside SEZ is not a good criterion for the purpose in question for various reasons. In the first place, Revenue will not be able to do verification of the measurements considering the activity involved vis-a-vis amount of refund to be granted. Further the quality of development and facilities provided inside SEZ and outside SEZ are likely to be very different.
Tribunal has held that although the documents are not in the name of the assessee’s factory but same are in the name of the head office of the assessee and there is no dispute about the input service received by the assessee. Therefore, substantive benefit cannot be denied on procedural grounds.
Having found a good case for the appellant on the question whether the order-in-original was issued and dispatched in accordance with the relevant provision of law, we have to remand this case to the learned Commissioner (Appeals) with a request to consider the assessee’s appeal filed against the order-in-original to have been filed within time and then to proceed to dispose it of on merits in accordance with law and the principles of natural justice. Accordingly, we set aside the impugned order and allow this appeal by way of remand for the aforesaid purpose. The stay application also stands disposed of.
Insofar as requirement of registration with the department as a condition precedent for claiming Cenvat credit is concerned, learned counsel appearing for both parties were unable to point out any provision in the Cenvat Credit Rules which impose such restriction. In the absence of a statutory provision which prescribed that registration is mandatory and that if such a registration is not made the assessee is not entitled to the benefit of refund,
As regards telephone service, I find that the decision of the Tribunal in the case of ITC Ltd. v. CC&E [2009] 20 STT 110 (Chennai – CESTAT) took a view that such credit is admissible. In the absence of any contrary decision, I follow the same and hold that the appellants are eligible for credit of service tax paid on telephone services in respect of telephone installed in the residence of employees.
The appellant is a manufacturer of acrylic fibre, acrylic top etc. and were availing the facility of Cenvat credit of duty paid on inputs, capital goods and Service Tax paid on inputs services used in or in relation to manufacture of final products. The appellants are availing the services of foreign agents and were paying commission on said agents located outside India.
It appears that the deficiency is that the bills raised by the CHA do not show the shipping bill numbers and date and the full requirements of the above conditions are not met. The reason given in the impugned order is that copies of shipping bills are not produced. No such condition is prescribed against S. No. 11.
In the present case, though the cheque was received on 4.1.2007, the same was actually deposited in the bank on 5.2.2007 and must have been encashed on a date after that. As such, it is to be considered as if the consideration for the services was received by the appellant in the month of February itself, thus requiring them to deposit the tax with the department in March, 2007.
Appellant’s signatory director of the applicant company was abroad during the time when the orders were received from the superintendent, and when the orders were served on the consultant. It is the submission of the ld. Counsel that the appellant company or the director was not aware of the receipt of the passing of the order.
