This appeal filed by the department is directed against an order of the Commissioner (Appeals) wherein certain refund claim was held to be admissible to the respondent and the amount for refund was directed to be quantified by the lower authority. The only ground raised in this appeal is that the learned Commissioner (Appeals) passed a remand order without having the power of remand.
SSI exemption Notification No. 6/2005-ST dated 01.3.2005 as amended vide Notification No. 8/2008-ST dated 01.3.2008, grants the benefit of exemption of service tax per year, provided that the assessee has not crossed the threshold limit of rupees ten lakhs in the preceding financial year.
In this case, there is no dispute that even though the bill is in the name of company C/o employee’s name, the payment for the service has been made by the company only. I also find that the submission of the appellant that employee’s name was put for internal purpose is also reasonable since the company has to know who is utilizing the telephone so that they can monitor the utilization and also ensure that phone is not misused.
The applicant has contended before the adjudicating authority that supply of electricity is supply of ‘goods’ and the same is exempted as per Notification no. 12/2003-ST wherein it has been clarified that supply of goods shall not form part of taxable service.
There is a fallacy in above reasoning of Commissioner (Appeals). The same service for which the contractor has procured an order, does not stand actually provided by him but is passed on to sub-contractor, who provided the actual service, it cannot be said that the contractor is liable to pay duty on the same.
The adjudicating Commissioner has also taken objection to the fact that the refunds have been made by way of credit and not by issue of cheques. In this respect, we note that a large number of transactions are involved and the industry practice is to make refunds by way of book adjustment allowing credit
The applicant were discharging their Service Tax liability in respect of tuition fee being charged by them from their students. Their premises were visited by the officers on 7.1.2010 and scrutiny of various records maintained by the appellants revealed that no Service Tax was being paid by them on pre-schooling coaching, sale of text books, conducting of mock test series etc.
Confirmation of demand under a category different than one proposed in the Show Cause Notice cannot be upheld. The Tribunal had, for the above proposition, relied up the earlier decision of the Tribunal in the case of Mahakoshal Beverages (P.) Ltd. v. CCE [2009] 18 STT 383 (Bang. – CESTAT).
It is an admitted fact on record that the appellant received the Order-in-Original on 30th December, 2009 and filed appeal before learned Commissioner (Appeals) on 2.1.2012. So also admittedly, there was a delay of more than two years in seeking appeal remedy before the learned first appellate authority.
We do not see any merit in the argument of the appellants that they were only an intermediary and not doing the work themselves and hence their activities did not amount to any service. Any service provided in relation to installation of electrical and electronic devices, including wirings or fittings, became taxable from 16-06-05.
