It was opined in those orders that insofar as supplies of material are concerned, such materials shall not be liable to service tax because Finance Act, 1994 is not a Commodity Taxation Law. Contract covering taxable service have been directed to be taxed.
Following the earlier order to reduce the litigation at the grass root level first appellate order is set aside and we send the matter back to ld. Appellate Authority to re-examine the issue without insisting on pre-deposits by him. In the result, both stay application and appeal are disposed remanding the appeals to the ld. Commissioner (Appeals) to decide the same in accordance with law.
In this appeal filed by the assessee, the challenge is against a demand raised on the appellant in terms of Rule 6(3) of the CENVAT Credit Rules 2004 for the period from July to December 2008. During the said period, the appellant (a unit in the domestic tariff area) had cleared their products to SEZ developers/units. During the same period they had also cleared their products to the DTA on payment of duty. The department treated the clearances to SEZ developers/units as clearance of exempted goods and, having found no maintenance of separate accounts in terms of rule 6(1) of the CCR 2004, chose to demand 10% of the sale price (taxes excluded) of the goods cleared to SEZ developers (units) during the above period.
From the impugned order, it does not come out clearly how the service tax liability has been computed. If the appellant has purchased from third parties and sold the same on payment of VAT and also supplied hardware on payment of VAT, the same would not be liable to service tax. The liability to service tax would arise only in respect of software which the appellant has developed as per customer’s specifications and supplied to their customers.
One important question survives for consideration and the same is whether the legal mistake committed by the Department can be corrected to ensure that the offender does not escape punishment under the Central Excise law. There is a clear distinction between a mistake of fact and a mistake of law. The former cannot be rectified at later stage but the latter is rectifiable subject, of course, to legal constraints. In the present case, the show-cause notice was issued to the appellant for the sole purpose of penalizing them for the offence alleged therein.
The Hon’ble Tribunal has held that Excise duty paid on Inputs and Service Tax paid on Input services used in the construction of immovable property can be taken and utilized for discharging ST liability on the renting of such immovable property and granted unconditional waiver from the pre-deposit of the dues adjudged against the Appellant and stay recovery thereof during the pendency of the Appeal on the basis of relying upon the following case laws:
Revenue agrees to grant an opportunity to the appellant to reduce the dispute at the grass root level. In view of the limited opportunity of rebuttals as above pleaded the matter is remanded to the learned Adjudicating Authority to re-examine the issue of input credit admissibility as stated above including the documents referred to in Para 5.2 of the first appellate order granting fair opportunity of defence to the appellant.
In this case appellant was allowed to operate the ropeway of Nagar Palika and such factual aspect called for testing by the Revenue Authorities with the provision of law under which the appellant was brought to tax. Section 65(105)(n) of the Act has taxing entry and meaning of the term Tour Operator is given by section 65(115) of the Act. Definition of Tour Operator” under section 65(115) states that any person engaged in the business, planning, scheduling, organizing or arranging tours by any mode of transport shall be Tour Operator.
The Airlines Industry represented to the authorities that they were receiving payments in Indian currency and the new amendment would cause hardship to the exporters and to them. Consequently the exemption under Notification 29/2005-S.T., dated 15-7-2005 was issued restoring exemption to such services from Service Tax as was available in Notification No. 28/2004-S.T., dated 17-9-2004. The additional ground taken in the application for that purpose is that notification 29/2005-S.T., dated 15-7-2005 is only in nature of a clarification and hence it should apply retrospectively.
Facts and circumstances of the case suggests that the appellant has adopted a novel way of splitting the consideration with nomenclature of reimbursement of expenses. Deliberate splitting is not possible to be ruled out when splitting is not intended by law. Once splitting is attributable to a motive, the appellant cannot get any shelter under the purview of law.
