Tribunal held that the service provided by appellant was not in relation to agriculture. Further appellant’s claim that service provided by it are eligible for exemption under notification no. 17/2005-ST, dated 07.06.2005
In the present case, it was found that the input supplier supplied input accompanied with Central Excise invoice. There is no dispute of genuinity of invoice. It is clearly evident from the statement of input supplied by the transporter. In such a situation
As far as the invocation of extended period is concerned tribunal observed that improper credit taken which was detected by the department officers only. At no stage of appellant approached the department for any guidance that there was any confusion in admissibility of credit on the impugned services.
Tribunal observed that normally it is practice that in case of any doubt or ambiguity, taxing provision is normally construed in favour of the assessee but when it is case of granting some exemption then there should be strict interpretation.
In view of the retrospective amendment introduced by Finance Act, 2010, the appellant were entitled to reverse the proportionate cenvat credit attributable to the quantum of input services used in or in relation to manufacture of exempted final product and by foregoing this credit
In the entirety of the show cause notice there is not a single assertion proposing to levy and collect service tax on the basis of any specified taxable services allegedly rendered by the appellant except the several alternative taxable services speculated to have been provided.
It is true that the service rendered by the assessee by way of sale of pre‐paid SIM cards through distributors was ultimately received by the subscribers. However, where the law prescribes the value of taxable service to be the gross amount charged by the service‐provider, Service tax can be levied on that amount only.
The issue of limitation of claim under Sec 11B as raised by Revenue is also not maintainable because the amount paid by the appellant in excess of their service tax liability ceased to be in nature of service tax paid by them and is merely an excess deposit paid by the appellant.
The crucial fact required to be seen is whether the main appellant should have enquired beyond the cenvatable document showing payment of duty that whether the inputs were due to the result of manufacture or not.
Providing of first-aid facilities to the workers, whether in the factory or in mines is the requirement of the Factories Act, 1948 and also the Mines Act, 1952 and if a manufacturer wants to carry on manufacturing activities, he has to comply with the provisions of the Factories Act and the Mines Act.
