Appellant submitted the reconciliation statement in respect of the shortage of the goods in their factory against which the demand was raised. It is seen from the impugned order that the authorities below has mainly proceeded on the basis of various statements and ignored the evidences placed by the Appellant.
I find that the appellant shifted the machinery from their registered premises without reversal of the credit. The Central Excise Officers detected the irregularity and thereafter, the appellant reversed the credit.
The appellant availed CENVAT credit during the period from June 2009 to March 2010 on the service tax paid on the basis of the invoices issued in the name of their head office. The Learned Advocate submits that the appellant is only manufacturing unit of the head office.
The Appellant is registered as Multi Product Special Economic Zone (MPSEZ) as a developer of AMRL Hi-Tech City. The Appellant claimed the refund of credit paid on various input services under Rule 5 of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 (“CC Rules”) read with Notification No. 12/2013-ST dated July 01, 2013.
The Department filed an appeal against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) and raised the legal issue by submitting that the place of removal is the factory gate and the transportation of the final product manufactured by the assessee beyond the factory gate will not get covered
Basic question which came up for consideration was eligibility of CENVAT Credit of Service Tax paid on outward transportation of goods upto place of removal. In the instant case, the appellant was denied CENVAT Credit of service tax paid on outward transportation service by the revenue on the premise that such transportation charges are post clearance expenses and therefore cannot be considered as ‘Input Service’.
It was held that the activity of procuring orders for the principal and also exploring potential customers and channelized the purchase orders should be classified under Business Auxiliary Service in accordance with rules of classification of the service.
iT was held that the export turnover portion in the formula prescribed under Rule 5 of CCR includes the value of exports made from SEZ. The Appellants are rendering software services and the services are exported and also to the domestic clients.
It was held that Currency Conversion Charges (mark up) in respect of credit/debit card transactions are not liable to service tax as the card transaction happened outside India.
On finalisation of the provisional assessment, it was revealed that there was some short duty paid by the assessee and there was some excess duty paid by them. It is held that Assessee is entitled for adjustment of excess duty paid with the short paid duty during the period of provisional assessment.
