Section 67 of the Finance Act, providing for levy of service tax on the gross amount charged by the service provider for the service provided plus/minus the inclusions/exclusions as mentioned in Explanation 1 to this section, satisfy the test for correctness of the measure prescribed by Supreme Court in the case of UOI v. Bombay Tyre International
The appellant came up in appeal against Order-in-Original dated 27.7.2009 passed by learned Commissioner relating to the period July 2003 to January 2007, giving rise to following consequences
Service Tax – Condonation of delay in filing appeal – Submission of the learned Chartered Accountant that the appellant company had different division and departments situated in the same building at Bangalore and the receipt of the said order in one department was not communicated to the legal department to prefer an appeal, is an argument without merits. It is for the appellant company to arrange his business in a manner that he takes action exercising his legal right of appeal with due diligence.
It is submitted that destination charges or ground handling charges were collected by MSIL for storage and warehousing service in relation to the clearance of goods. The service formed an integral part of service relating to clearance of goods and the charges were towards storage and warehousing.
We find that in an identical issue this bench had taken a view in the case of Chakita Ranjini Udyam (supra) that the value of the rubber, cushion, gum and solution consumed in the retreading/ reconditioning of tyres need not be included in the value for the discharge of Service Tax and benefit of Notification No.12/2003 is available.
We are of the prima facie view that from the number of invoices, it is clear that the invoices dated 29.07.2005, 26.08.2005, 1.8.2005, 22.10.2005 and 26.11.2005 had been issued at a later date in 2006, as the invoice number of these invoices issued during July 2005 to November, 2005 period is of the year 2006 and under these invoices, the credit amounting to about Rs.60 lakhs had been taken.
SAP India Pvt. Ltd., the Appellants, entered into end-user license agreements with clients for maintenance of information technology software already installed in the computer systems and made operational. Show cause notice (SCN) was issued alleging
SAP India Pvt. Ltd. (Appellant) is engaged in the provision of consultancy, licensing and maintenance or ERP software. The Commissioner, Service Tax had confirmed service tax demand of INR 20 crores on the Appellant under maintenance and repair’ service during the period July 2004 and January 2006. In addition to the service tax demand, the Commissioner had also confirmed interest and penalties against the Appellant.
On hearing both sides, we find that the issue in dispute is as to whether service tax liability arises on recipient of commission who resides outside India and has no office in India, for the period prior to 18.4.2006. The Apex Court has held that such liability arises only with effect from 18.4.2006 with the introduction of Section 66A of the Finance Act, 1944. The ratio of the Apex Court’s decision in Union of India Vs. India
M/s Coromandel Paints Ltd („the appellant?) are manufacturers of paints & varnishes, thinners falling under chapter 32 and 38 of the schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 („the Central Excise Tariff?). The appellant had entered into an agreement with M/s. Sigmakalon India Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai (SIPL) for manufacture and supply of paints. The paints manufactured by the appellant for SIPL were meant for industrial and institutional use, hence, in accordance with the provision of Standards of Weights and Measures Act, 1976, no MRP was required to be printed on such packages. Accordingly, the valuation of the same is not required to be done under Section 4A of the Central Excise Act, 1944 („the Central Excise Act?). Therefore, the appellant sold the said goods to SIPL by paying Central Excise duty on the transaction value i.e. on the landing cost of the raw materials and the production overheads. Further, the invoice amounts were adjusted against the advances paid by SIPL. The Department demanded duty from the appellant on the ground, that the goods were being manufactured by the appellant on job work basis and the same were required to be assessed in terms of Rule 10A of the Central Excise (Determination of price of excisable goods) Rules, 2000 („the Valuation Rules?). The demand was upheld by the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals). Being aggrieved by the order of the Commissioner (Appeals), the appellant preferred an appeal to the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (“CESTAT?).
