Assessees have made out a strong prima facie case on the ground that, although they were charging management fees from the bank who lend/advance money to the SHGs, they were a non-profit making organization as no profit or income or profit was paid or transferred to their members directly or indirectly by way of dividend or bonus. This view finds support from the decision of the Tribunal in M/s. Institute of Banking Personnel Selection Vs CST, Mumbai [2007 (8) STR 529].
The issue involved in the matter is whether the trade discount amounts received by the appellant to be treated as commission and taxable under the Business Auxiliary Service or not. The liability in that regard is essentially to be decided on the basis of the provisions of law comprised under the service tax statute. Besides the provisions of the said rules which are brought to our notice rather than disclosing principal to principal relationship between the publisher of the newspaper and the appellants, overall reading of the said rules disclose certain disciplinary control by the Newspaper Society over the appellants as far as it relates to advertising services are concerned which would, prima-facie, disclose the trade discount to be in the nature of commission to the agents.
Explanation to Rule 6(1) of the Service Tax Rules provide that for removal of doubt, it is clarified that in case the value of taxable service is received before providing of the said service, then the service tax is required to be paid on the value of the service, then the service tax is required to be paid on the value of the service attributable for the relevant month or quarter as the case may be. Ld. Chartered Accountant for the appellants has also drawn our attention to the fact that the said explanation ceased to be on the statute book from 12 th September, 2007.
The assessee did not file ST-3 returns declaring the correct taxable value as prescribed. We find that the Joint Commissioner had held that the assessee was not liable to pay service tax on demurrage and handling charges with respect to export cargo/baggage in appellants’ own case. The Commissioner has refrained from confirming the demand for extended period. The circumstances clearly show that the appellant had not attempted to evade service tax due. Moreover, the liabilities confirmed followed interpretation of provisions which could also accommodate the view held by the appellants.
Plea of the assessee that while making the payment wrong service tax code relating to erection, installation and commissioning, indicated merits to be considered and having regards to facts of the case and Board’s Circular No. 58/7/2003-ST, dated 20.05.03 issued from F.No.l59/2/2003-CX-4 and therefore adjustment of payment in the correct account code are allowed. If so, the Board’s circular dated 20.05.03 (referred supra) as a payment should be admissible. .
After carefully considering the submissions made by both the sides we find that it is an admitted fact by both the sides that the construction of road does not require payment of service tax. The Revenue’s only appeal is that construction of driveway cannot be equated with the construction of road in as much as such driveway was not for public utility purpose but the same was in connection with the petrol pump owned by the owner.
The combined reading of the Rule 7 and the clarificatory Circular dated 23-8-2007 clearly shows that there are only two restrictions regarding the distribution of the credit. The first restriction is that the credit should not exceed the amount of Service Tax paid. The second restriction is that the credit should not be attributable to services used in manufacture of exempted goods or providing of exempted services. There are no other restrictions under the rules. The restrictions sought to be applied by the Department in this case in limiting the distribution of the Service Tax credit made in respect of the Malur Unit on the ground that the services were used in respect of the Cuttack Unit finds no mention in the relevant rules.
In case of an accident within the factory, the compensation has to be paid by the company in accordance with the law and this is obligatory. To fulfil this legal obligation, the assessee has taken insurance. Therefore, it can be said that in this case the insurance premium is definitely relatable to business activity and is to fulfil one of the legal obligations of providing compensation to worker in case of injury in the factory. Under these circumstances, it was held that Cenvat credit of service tax paid on insurance taken to pay workmen’s compensation to the insurance company is admissible. Accordingly, appeal filed by the revenue is rejected.
Saraswati Engineering Vs CCCES (Cestat) – If the assessee has discharged the service tax liability on his own ascertainment or on the basis of ascertainment by the Central Excise officers and inform the Central Excise officer of payment of such service tax then, no notice under sub-section (1) in respect of the amount so paid shall be served.
CCE, Trichy Vs. SBI, Kumbakonam (CESTAT Chennani) – The fourth proviso to the said Section 78 provides that the reduced penalty of 25% is available if the same is paid within 30 days of the Commissioner (Appeals) but this proviso applies in the case where the Commissioner (Appeals) enhances the penalty and not where he reduces the penalty. In this case, the Commissioner (Appeals) has reduced the penalty and hence the respondents cannot take advantage to the provision under the fourth proviso to Section 78.
