he appellants were not maintaining separate records of receipt, consumption of inventory of inputs and input services in terms of Rule 6(2) of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 and therefore, they opted to pay CENVAT Credit as determined under Rule 6(3A) of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 in terms of Rule 6(3)(ii) of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004.
CESTAT Bangalore, in M/S. Anheuser Busch Inbev India Ltd. v. Commissioner of Central Tax [Service Tax Appeal No. 20374 of 2020, decided on February 18, 2021] held that no service tax under reverse charge mechanism is payable on the license fee and other application fee paid to the State Excise department for grant of liquor license. Further, confirmed the Service tax demand on Storage License fee for CO2 which the Appellant is liable to pay along with interest.
Learned Counsel pointed out that there are 28 contracts in respect of which demand has been made. Learned Counsel stated that they have paid the service tax in respect of Serial Number 14 and 20 of the said list and these are not disputed. Learned Counsel pointed out that they are entitled to get the benefit of the mega Exemption Notification No. 25/2012-ST dated 20 June, 2012. He pointed out that Serial Number 12(d), Serial Number 13(a) and Serial Number 14(a) of the said notification cover all the contracts that they have undertaken as these contracts are in respect of the canals, roads and railways etc. He pointed out that the availability of exemption under Serial Number 13(a) and 14(a) could not be taken up before Commissioner due to lack of proper representation by the Advocate. He pointed out that they are entitled to these benefits but the Commissioner‟s order only examine the benefits with respect to Serial Number 12(d) of the said notification. He pointed out that in order to get a proper redressel, the matter needs to be sent back to Commissioner for fresh adjudication for examining the relief under all the related entries of the mega Notification No. 25/2012-ST dated 20 June, 2012.
In order to attract Section 78, it is necessary that tax must have remained unpaid for the reasons of fraud or collusion or wilful mis-statement or suppression of facts, etc, with an intention to evade payment of tax.
Pujan Builders Engineers & Contractors Vs C.C.E. & S.T. Vadodara-II (CESTAT Ahmedabad) The facts in the present case is not under dispute that the appellant have paid the excess service tax during the quarter April to June, 2017, however, the appellant under bona fide belief transferred the said excess paid service tax into their TRANS-1 […]
Pujan Builders Engineers & Contractors Vs C.C.E. & S.T. (CESTAT Ahmedabad) The facts in the present case is not under dispute that the appellant have paid the excess service tax during the quarter April to June, 2017, however, the appellant under bona fide belief transferred the said excess paid service tax into their TRANS-1 as […]
Commissioner was not justified in confirming the demand of service tax under the category of ‘works contract’ for the period post June 1, 2007 even if the levy of service tax was not exempted under Notifications, since, the show cause notice that demand it service tax under the three categories namely (i) commercial or industrial construction, (ii) construction of complex and (iii) management, maintenance or repair.
The Application for refund of service tax has to be made within the period stipulated in sub-section (3) of section 102 of the Finance Act.
Venkateshwara Power Projects Ltd Vs Commissioner of Central Tax (CESTAT Bangalore) Assistant Commissioner passed the Order-in-Original on 18/03/2019 but the same was not actually delivered to the appellant. The appellant only came to know on 12/03/2020 when they received a letter from the Superintendent informing them about the passing of the Order-in-Original and ordered to […]
The issue involved in this appeal is as to whether the value of items supplied free of cost by service recipient to the appellant have to be included in the value of mining services provided by the appellant.
