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.
It is only in cases duty is determined coupled with the fact that the duty is evaded by a reason of fraud, collusion or any willful mis-statement or suppression of facts or contravention of any of the provisions of this Act or the rules made there under with intent to evade payment of duty
The Commissioner has not taken into consideration the details of processed fabrics received by SCM and AP& Sons and not considered the evidences relied by the department and also white papers bearing the signature of Shri C. Manikandan
The appellant availed CENVAT credit on input and capital goods. On a visit of the Central Excise officers, Preventive Unit, Thane – I on 20/02/2007, on their insurance, the appellant have reversed CENVAT credit of Rs.1, 70,737/- on 12/03/2007.
Appellant is engaged in the activity of registration of website domain names i.e. appellant is a registrar. The appellant is also accredited by International Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) for certain top level domains.
The adjudicating authority shall give in writing details of the documents he requires from the appellant apart from the documents already supplied within seven days of receipt of this order and thereafter the appellant shall supply the documents within seven days and thereafter the adjudicating authority shall decide the claim of refund within fifteen days.
The Hon’ble CESTAT held that every shortcoming noticed during Audit cannot be held as due to mala fide intention on part of Assessee so as to invoke extended period of limitation and levy the penalty.
In my considered opinion, the appellant fell within the ambit of “outdoor caterer” as defined at all times inasmuch as he was admittedly catering food to Dr. Reddy’s Laboratories Ltd. at a place owned by the latter and it is not the case of the appellant that he was the owner of those premises. In this view of the matter, it is held that the appellant was liable to pay service tax prior to 16.6.2005 also. For the period from 16.6.2005, there is no room for doubt inasmuch as the amended definition is explicit. Accordingly it has to be held that the appellant was liable to pay service tax under the head “outdoor catering service” on the catering charges collected from Dr. Reddy’s Laboratories Ltd. for the entire period.
In the case of Oswal Petrochemicals Ltd. (supra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court has categorically held that the statute does not provide any remedy by way of review. There are other decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court to the effect that in the absence of specific statutory provision. Tribunal cannot exercise review powers and only rectification of mistake can be made when such mistake is apparent on the face of the record which must be an obvious mistake and not something which has to be established by a long drawn process of reasoning or where two opinions are possible.
If on the basis of an agreement between the State authority and the concessionaire for construction of roads, the contractor is authorised to collect the toll charges from the users of the roads for the services rendered and the entire activity is done on Build-Own/Operate-Transfer basis, there is no service tax liability. Construction of roads has been specifically excluded from the scope of service tax levy both under “Commercial and Industrial Construction Service” and “Works Contract Service”. Further repair and maintenance of roads have also been exempted from service tax retrospectively in this year’s budget. Thus the intention of the Government is to keep out road construction activity from the purview of service tax. If that be so, how can service tax be levied on the very same activity under Business Auxiliary Service (BAS)? Such a view does not appeal to any reason or logic.
