There is one more ground on which the refund claim has been rejected i.e. prior to 16.05.2006 the appellant did not have registration as an input service distributor and hence the appellant could not have availed service tax credit on ISD basis. However, what is required to be seen is whether the appellant received the services at Nasik and if so the appellant used the same for rendering of the output service. These facts need to be verified by the revenue instead of summarily rejecting the claim.
In the case of consideration received for freight we are of the prima facie view that ocean freight was not liable to service tax. While there are specific entries in Finance Act, 1994 levying tax on transportation of goods by road, rail, aircraft, pipeline etc. there is no entry levying tax on transportation by sea. It has to be reasonably presumed that this is kept outside the tax net and it cannot be taxed under a general entry like business support services. Further it appears that such services are rendered in respect of export cargo.
Appellant had supplied the tool kit as per statutory requirements under Central Motor Vehicle Rules, 1989 as accessories to be used in relation to the manufacture of vehicle. Thus, ‘tool kit’ in our view is squarely covered by the definition of ‘input’ given under Rule 2(k)(i) of Cenvat Credit Rules and that the appellant had rightly availed the Cenvat credit in relation to tool kits. I
If the appellant have paid the service tax they are entitled to take credit of the same. In that view, it cannot be said that by suppressing the fact that the appellants are going to get extra benefit on account suppression. In view of these observations and following the decision in the case of Amman Steel Corpn. (supra), I am of the view that penalty under Section 78 of the Finance Act is not sustainable.
We have not found prima facie case for the appellant insofar as the demand of service tax on life membership fees is concerned. Though it has been claimed that such fees are refundable as per the by-laws of the appellant, the claim is yet to be substantiated. We have not been shown a copy of the by-laws.
It is well settled that the assessee is entitled to take CENVAT credit of service tax paid by them on the services availed by them in the course of business of manufacturing as held by the Hon’ble High Court of Bombay in the case of CCE v. Ultratech Cement Ltd. [2010] 29 STT 244 (Bom.).
So far as the cross-objection of the respondent assessee is concerned, we do not find merit on valuation issue when discussion made by the ld. Commissioner (Appeals) in para 6.2 is read. The respondent assessee claims cum-tax benefit. This point does not need further consideration at this stage for no evidence led to show that the gross value was inclusive of service tax. So far as the taxability is concerned that was not before ld. Commissioner (Appeals). Such issue not been raised nor decided no pleading at this stage is entertainable in second appeal. Cross-objection is dismissed accordingly.
As per Notification No. 5/06, the assesses are required to file a refund claim within the time prescribed under Section 11B of the Central Excise Act. As per Section 11B of the Act, the assessees are required to file a refund claim within one year from the relevant date and the limitation of one year shall not apply where duty has been paid under protest.
If any of the part of the advance attributable to taxable service and that did not form part of returns filed subsequently that amount shall be brought to tax without escapement. Law does not permit postponement of liability because of specific provision under section 67(3) of the Finance Act.
We are unable to find from the orders of the authorities below as to the manner how the appellant has failed to get benefit of Notification No. 32/2004-ST, dated 3-12-2004.
