Service tax credit cannot be taken when service tax has not been shown to have been paid by service provider; once it is found that Cenvat credit was irregularly availed by the assessee and by implication to that extent the service tax on the output service was short paid, it has to be recovered under Rule 14 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004.
CCE (ST) Vs. M/s. EID Parry – Demands on Indian companies for tax on services of BAS received from persons abroad – held that “it is only after enactment of Section 66A that taxable services received from abroad by a person belonging to India are taxed in the hands of the Indian residents – Since Section 66A was introduced on 18.4.2006 much after the material period, the impugned order had to be sustained – revenue’s appeal rejected
In terms of the Board’s clarification dated 28-2-2006, the service rendered namely outsourcing of spot billing work by APCPDCL would come within the ambit of business support service which is liable to service tax only with effect from 2006.
In the present case, the only ground on which it was proposed to deny Cenvat Credit on Service Tax is the non-installation of mobile phones in the appellant’s premises. Neither is there any ground in the notice nor any finding that the calls made from the mobile were not relatable to the business of the assessee. In this view of the matter, the judgment of the Hon’ble Gujarat High Court squarely covers the issue in favour of the appellant. Following the same, I set aside the impugned order and allow the appeal.
A transaction in intellectual property (IP) along with the right to manufacture the licensed product is totally different from the technical assistance rendered by an engineer or a firm of engineers; when IP services are brought under the tax net without altering the scope of “Consulting Engineer Service” the new impost covers an activity hitherto not exigible to service tax under the head Consulting Engineer.
Rule-2(l) of Cenvat Credit Rules does not require that service has to be rendered at the factory of the manufacturer for the purpose of eligibility for service tax credit. Therefore the stand of the revenue that since the service was provided at the buyer’s premises credit is not admissible cannot be accepted. What has to be examined is whether the service provided is in or in relation to manufacture.
We have gone through the contracts entered into between the assessee and its clients. As per the contract with TCS, Focus would provide technical assistance of choice personnel to work on the computer software development, implementation and maintenance of specific project to be allocated by TCS.
Normally vehicles changed hands from the manufacturer to the customers through the authorized dealers and the customers can arrange finance independently through any other person; if the third party has arranged the finance to the buyer of the vehicle, the services of the said third party would undoubtedly come under the business auxiliary services.
Whether the contracts of IOCL and BPCL with L&T can be held to be divisible and therefore service tax can be levied on the services part as held by Member (Technical) or whether the contracts between the appellants and IOCL & BPCL to be held as not divisable and therefore not liable to service tax as held by Member (Judicial)? Whether the contract between GEB and the appellants
Lafarge India Pvt. Ltd. V. CCE (CESTAT Delhi) – Merely credit was taken by the assessee and not utilized and not taken any advantage of such credit, payment of interest is not sustainable. There is no allegation that the appellant utilized or taken any advantage of the credit and therefore recovery of interest is set aside.
