Considering the fact that the entire amount of service tax and interest has been paid before the issuance of the show-cause notice, I reduce the penalty under section 78 to 25% of the service tax but confirm the penalty imposed under section 77 by the impugned orders. The appellants are directed to pay penalty under section 78 confirmed by this order within 30 days of the communication of this order. Failing which, the appellants shall be liable to pay 100% of penalty as imposed in the impugned orders. The appeals are disposed of in the above terms.
Notice of dismissal was issued on 29-2-2012 to show cause as to the reason why appeal of the appellant should not be dismissed for non-compliance with the stay order.
In absence of any particular format prescribed under the respective notifications, the department insisting for declaration on each consignment note for allowing the abatement under the said Notifications is un-sustainable in law. In these circumstances the declarations filed by the Goods Transport Agencies (GTA) in their letter-heads or in the respective payment bills certifying that they have not availed Cenvat credit on puts or capital goods nor availed the benefit of exemption Notification 12/2003 S.T., dated 20-6-2003 should have been accepted by the department in extending the benefit of Notification Nos. 32/2003- S.T. and 1/2006-S.T. In view of the above findings, we do not see any merit in the impugned orders passed by the ld. Commissioner. Consequently the order is set aside and the Appeals are allowed.
The order impugned before the Commissioner was received by the appellant on 04.09.2010 and the appeal was filed on 11.08.2011. Commissioner (Appeals) has observed that there is no provision under Section 85 of the Finance Act, 1994 to condone the delay beyond the period of three months on expiry of the limitation period.
The disputed issue relating to inclusion of cost of materials used for providing photographic services, which stands decided against the appellant by a Larger Bench decision of the Tribunal in the case of Aggarwal Colour Advance Photo System v. CCE [2011] 33 STT 33.
The issue in the present case is whether service tax paid on ‘rent-a-cab service’ for transportation of staff from Vashi railway station to the container freight station run by the appellant is an eligible input service under Rule 2(l) of the Rule or not. The Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka in the case of Stanzen Toyotetsu India (P.) Ltd. (supra) and Bell Ceramics Ltd. (supra) has held that these services are eligible input service under CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 and CENVAT Credit o the service tax paid thereon is available.
The appellants have undisputedly undertaken booking of tickets during the period 2004-05 for other service providers who are similarly placed as tour operators. They have received consideration from the said tour operators towards the services rendered. This is clearly towards ‘promotion or marketing of services provided by the client’ which is included under the definition of ‘Business Auxiliary Services’ in terms of section 65(105)(zzb).
The appellants shall be eligible for the credit of rent-a-cab service provided, they are able to satisfy that the rent-a-cab service has been utilized for transport of employees/officials or business related visitors to their factory/office. These submissions have not been specifically made before the authorities below, as rightly pointed by the learned Superintendent (AR). Under these circumstances, I deem it appropriate to set aside the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) and remand the matter to the original authority for fresh consideration after granting opportunity to the assessee to produce additional evidence and granting them reasonable opportunity of hearing. All the issues are kept open.
Undisputedly the respondent deposited the amount at the investigation stage and the proceeding initiated against them were dropped by ld. Commissioner (Appeals) vide his order dated 9-2-2011. It is a case of refund of deposit of duty and not a refund of duty therefore the principle of unjust enrichment which is applicable to refund of duty is not applicable in this case.
Income from auction of abandoned cargo not taxable under Storage & Warehousing Services as its a sale – Even though the appellant is the custodian of the goods and not the owner, still transfer to title of the goods takes place during the auction and hence it is to be treated as a sale. The fact of sale is also evident from the sales tax having been paid by the successful bidder. Thus, when the transaction is one of sale and not a service, the question of payment of Service tax will never arise.
