Vide section 97 of the Finance Act, 2012, such activity was granted retrospective exemption w.e.f. 16.06.2005 to 26.06.2009. Inasmuch as the period involved in the present matter is from 31.01.2006 up to 18.04.2006, we hold that the appellant is not liable to pay any service tax on the activities of repair and maintenance of roads.
If there is any defect in appeal, in terms of the procedure prescribed by rule 4.03 of Chapter 4 of Judicial Manual, that defect may be intimated to the appellant for curing the same without compulsion since curable defects do not take away right to appeal. Therefore, such valuable right should not be casually denied on flimsy ground of technicalities without scrutiny according to procedure prescribed by Judicial Manual.
CENVAT Credit cannot be denied merely on the ground that HO who raised invoice was not registered under central registration during material period It is to be held that final rejection of centralized registration vide letter dated 26-5-2006 cannot be held to be a justifiable reason for denial of the credit. Apart from the fact that during the said period, the application was pending in the office of Deputy Commissioner, without their being any decision taken by him on the same, 1 find that there is otherwise no dispute about the availability of the credit to the appellant. The substantial benefit, if otherwise available, cannot be denied on the technical and procedural grounds. As such, in the absence of any dispute that the appellant was otherwise entitled to the benefit of Cenvat credit of Service Tax paid on GTA services, so received by them, the denial of the same on the ground that the credit was availed on the basis of invoices raised by their head office is neither justifiable nor warranted.
It was submitted by the learned A.R. that the appellant company being a limited company is not covered by the term association and exemption available is only to the association. However, it was pointed out by the learned counsel that the appellant is registered under Section 25 of the Companies Act, 1956 which provides that the word “limited” can be dispensed with in respect of an association formed as a limited company for promoting commerce, art, science, religion, charity or any other object.
After considering the submissions, we note that the impugned demand of service tax and education cess is not under any determinate head of taxable service. No breakup of the gross value for different categories mentioned in the impugned order is forthcoming. Apparently, the appropriate taxable service was not identified either in the show-cause notice or in the impugned order. A demand of service tax without correct classification of the taxable service is alien to the scheme of service tax levy.
The stand of the assessee before the lower authorities that it was inadvertent mistake and there was no mala fide in availing the ineligible excess credit. On perusal of the Show-Cause Notice, we find that the Show Cause Notice only alleges the violation of provisions of Rule 14 of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 read with section 11AB of Finance Act, 1994 (sic). The said Show-Cause Notice does not allege any mala fide on the appellant for availment of excess credit. In our view, having reversed the ineligibly availed the Cenvat credit on being pointed out by the Audit party, the appellant has shown their bona fide on admitting the error. In view of this, we are of the view that the impugned order which upholds the imposition of penalty on the appellant is liable to be set aside and we do so.
Looking to the legislative intent it is not possible to say that the risk covered by insurance service received shall not enjoy Cenvat credit of service tax paid on such service. No doubt, the insurance service may be indirectly connected to the manufacturing or other activity but that may be in relation to manufacture or various other business activities enumerated in Rule 2(l) of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004.
The short issue for consideration is whether the appellants could have paid tax on an exempted services and claimed refund under Notification No. 17/2009 which allows refund of tax paid on services used in or in relation to the export of goods. The learned appellate authority has held that when a service is exempted, the appellant cannot pay the taxes and thereafter claim refund of the same on the ground that it is in connection with export purposes.
I have perused the Management Agent agreement entered into by the appellant with the principal M/s. Titan Industries Ltd. In terms of the agreement, the appellant is required to display, stock and sell jewellery products to the customers through showrooms managed and operated by the agent on stock transfer basis. The design, maintenance and operation of the showrooms has to be undertaken as per the directions of the principal and the insurance cover for the showroom has to be provided by the agent.
As per Article 56 of the Schedule to the ADB Act, the bank, its assets, property, income and its operations and transactions, shall be exempt from all taxation and from all customs duties. The Bank shall also be exempt from any obligation for the payment, withholding or collection of any tax or duty and Section 5 of the ADB Act clearly says that notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in any other law,
