In the instant case, the expenditure in respect of CMC charges was incurred by the assessee in discharging its primary responsibility as a CHA. In view of the clear provisions of rule 5 of the Service-tax (Determination of value) Rules, 2006, the CMC charges are to be included in the assessable value of the taxable service provided by the assessee. As regards the issue of time bar, it was found that the assessee never disclosed the fact that CMC charges are recovered from its customers in the ST-3 returns in which the statutory returns were filed by the assessee, wherein there was a separate column in which the assessees had to show the reimbursable expenses. Therefore, there was no merit in contention of assessee in respect of time bar also.
The assessee was registered with the Central Excise Department on its own on 16-6-2005. It was a proprietorship concern and it was required to file the service tax returns quarterly, which it had been filing meticulously with the Department. However, due to non-understanding of the relevant provisions of law, there was some short-payment of service tax during the period from August 2005 to October, 2006. However, when the said short payment was brought to the assessee’s notice in November, 2006 by the Visiting Departmental Officers, the entire amount of service tax was paid.
In the case of Idea Mobile Communication Ltd. v. CCE&C [2011] 32 STT 262/12 taxmann.com 307 (SC), the Apex Court has confirmed the view taken by the High Court wherein it was held that a transaction of selling of SIM card to the subscriber is also a part of the ‘service’ rendered by the service provider to the subscriber. The contention of the assessee that the amount paid as sales tax be considered as sufficient compliance of section 35F of the Central Excise Act, read with section 83 of the Finance Act could not be accepted. As the Tribunal has no power to adjust such payments as the same is created under the special Act, i.e., Customs Act, Finance Act and Central Excise Act. Therefore, the Tribunal has no power to adjust the payment of sales tax against service tax. As discussed above, the assessee had failed to make out a case for 100 per cent waiver of pre-deposit.
Once the payment of service tax had been made by service provider to Treasury, assessee may not be denied the benefit of Cenvat credit, subject to appropriate examination of the allegation in the show-cause notice and proving use of the service in accordance with law. The original authority had to be satisfied that requirement of rule 9(5) of the Cenvat Credit Rules was fulfilled and service-tax paid was relating to input service that was ultimately used in manufacture of excisable goods. If he was satisfied that there was nexus, dependability, integrity, indispensability and inevitability, there may not be a difficulty to consider the claim of the assessee.
Notification No. 41/2009-ST, dated 23-10-2009 exempted a works contract in respect of canals, other than canals primarily used for commercial or industrial purposes, from the whole of the service tax leviable thereon. This notification appears to be the first of its kind issued after introduction of works contract service as a taxable service, and did not provide for retrospective operation. Therefore, the arguments advanced by the assessee, claiming support from a judgment of the Apex Court in W.P.I.L. Ltd. v. CCE 2005 (181) ELT 359 (SC) and praying for exemption under the said notification cannot be accepted.
Appellant has rented out / leased the land along with the entire building, swimming pool and restaurant, bar, parking etc. with all the facilities as provided in the base building and the amenities and facilities under an agreement on monthly rental basis and a hotel is being run in the said building by M/s. Royal Orchid Banjara Pvt. Ltd. – in view of Explanation-1, clause (d) to the entry in section 65(105)(zzzz), it cannot be said to renting of immovable property.
Hon’ble Tribunal in the case of Commissioner of Central Excise, Rajkot v. Adani Pharmachem (P.) Ltd. – 2008 (12) STR 593 (Tri-Ahmd) cited by the appellants has held that in case where the sale is on FOB/CIF basis, the place of removal has to be load port only. Further in the case of Cauvery Stones Impex Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Salem -2010 (18) STR 73 (Tri-Chennai) has held that since the price of the goods exported was on FOB basis and therefore the ownership of the goods exported remained with the assessee up to the port of shipment and they also bore the risk of the goods up to the port of shipment. It was further held that the place of removal is the port and GTA service from factory gate to port of shipment is an input service and hence credit of service tax paid thereon is admissible
Bench held that When the transporter is same and recipient is respondent and there is no contradiction that tax was collected from the transporter, double taxation on the same transaction is inconceivable under the present provisions of Finance Act, 1994.
Apparently the Superintendent took objection for the debit of interest in the cenvat credit and thereafter the appellants made the cash payment. Under these circumstances it has to be held that the payments made by the appellant were under protest only and therefore the time limit under Section 11B would not be applicable.
As regards the refund claim of Rs. 6,66,794/- which has been rejected on the ground that the services to which this amount pertains do not have direct nexus with the authorized operations undertaken by the appellant, this stand of the department is totally incorrect. The Approval Committee which has examined this issue has issued a specific certificate to the appellant indicating the various services received by the appellant and justification for use of such services in relation to authorized operations.
