It has been held by the lower authorities that unless an assessee is able to show that the input service has nexus with the manufacture of final product, the inclusive part would not be of any help. In this case, I find that the services have been obtained for the purpose of conducting audit of the process and change of raw material suitably and the same have been presented to GTZ to receive the grant so that the company can phase out the process, which cause depletion of ozone in the atmosphere.
It is not in dispute that the Bangalore office of the company was a registered input service distributor and it distributed input services under cover of valid invoices to the various manufacturing units, eight in number, which were engaged in the manufacture of pharmaceutical formulations (dutiable final products).
Service provider, namely, M/s.Aban Offshore Ltd., has paid the impugned tax amount under the category of Mining Service without disputing the same. As pointed out by the learned JCDR, it is settled law that unless the assessment has been disputed, no refund can be sanctioned vide the Hon’ble Supreme Court’s decision in the cases of Flock (India) (P.) Ltd. (supra) and Priya Blue Industries Ltd. (supra).
Assessee is a 100% EOU and the disputed service tax related to import of services from foreign based commission agent. The assessee was required to pay the tax as a deemed service provider in terms of Section 66A of the Finance Act. Since the services were clearly input services for the appellant, the assessee was eligible for credit of service tax if the same had been paid by them.
In this case, since as discussed above, the Renusagar Power Plant is a captive power plant of the Appellant’s manufacturing unit, the two have to be treated as one intergrated unit and therefore, the cenvat credit of service tax paid on insurance policy for the power plant would be admissible.
The relevant show-cause notices were issued far beyond the normal period of limitation prescribed under Section 11A(i) of the Central Excise Act, without invoking the extended period of limitation. The operative part of one of these show-cause notices has been reproduced hereinbefore. The other show-cause notice is no different.
As per facts on record, the appellant is engaged in the manufacture of sugar and molasses falling under Chapter 78 of Central Excise Tariff Act. They are availing services of goods transport agency for receiving the inputs in the factory as also for clearing the final product from the factory. The appellant, as recipient of GTA services, are required to pay Service Tax.
There is also no dispute as to the fact the water pumped from river Kundalika is used as a coolant in the manufacturing process. If that be so, the pumping of water from the banks of river Kundalika is integrally connected to the manufacturing process and the security services used therein becomes an input service in terms of the definition of input service under Rule 2(l) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004.
The allegation of the revenue that service has been rendered by appellant but has not discharged the service tax liability is not sustainable as per section 65(7) of the Finance Act, wherein the ‘assessee’ means a person liable to pay service tax and includes his agent. In this case, appellant has appointed M/s Matrix as her agent to discharge her service tax liability on her behalf and same has been discharged by M/s Matrix.
Admittedly, the Chartered Accountant’s certificate to the effect that sale is on FOR basis and all expenses incurred up to the buyers premises form part of the cost of final product. Commissioner (Appeals) has also held in favour of the appellant, when he observed that the purchase orders are on FOR basis and it is the appellant who has to bear the freight and insurance by arranging transportation of the goods.
