As regards telephone service, I find that the decision of the Tribunal in the case of ITC Ltd. v. CC&E [2009] 20 STT 110 (Chennai – CESTAT) took a view that such credit is admissible. In the absence of any contrary decision, I follow the same and hold that the appellants are eligible for credit of service tax paid on telephone services in respect of telephone installed in the residence of employees.
The appellant is a manufacturer of acrylic fibre, acrylic top etc. and were availing the facility of Cenvat credit of duty paid on inputs, capital goods and Service Tax paid on inputs services used in or in relation to manufacture of final products. The appellants are availing the services of foreign agents and were paying commission on said agents located outside India.
It appears that the deficiency is that the bills raised by the CHA do not show the shipping bill numbers and date and the full requirements of the above conditions are not met. The reason given in the impugned order is that copies of shipping bills are not produced. No such condition is prescribed against S. No. 11.
In the present case, though the cheque was received on 4.1.2007, the same was actually deposited in the bank on 5.2.2007 and must have been encashed on a date after that. As such, it is to be considered as if the consideration for the services was received by the appellant in the month of February itself, thus requiring them to deposit the tax with the department in March, 2007.
Appellant’s signatory director of the applicant company was abroad during the time when the orders were received from the superintendent, and when the orders were served on the consultant. It is the submission of the ld. Counsel that the appellant company or the director was not aware of the receipt of the passing of the order.
Post service tax valuation rules, the said rules provides for inclusion of free material supplied by service recipients and has been directing the assessee in other cases to deposit some amount of the Service Tex liability for the period post service Tax valuation rules as a condition to hear and dispose the appeal.
Undisputedly the appellant had received input services viz. GTA and Business Auxiliary Service and used the same in or in relation to the manufacture and trading of Electric Meters. It is also not in dispute that credit of Rs. 3,41,397/- availed by the appellant on the said input services were not exclusively used in or in relation to the manufacture of Electricity Meters, but also used for trading purposes.
This argument of the ld. advocate is prima facie untenable as the appellants are recovering charges incurred for maintenance of the common areas from the individual shop owners. Ld. advocate himself states that the maintenance is done through service contractors who are providing the maintenance service and are also paying service tax.
As regards the financial difficulty, I have gone through the Income Tax return for the year 2010-2011 and I find that acceding to the Income Tax return, the appellant had invested in equity shares amounting to more than Rs. 4.7 lakhs. In view of the fact that the demand of Service Tax is of Rs. 2.31 lakhs, it cannot be said that the appellant is in such a financial position that he cannot pay this amount.
Whatever was submitted to the department was rebate claim under Notification No.21/2004 after the refund claim was rejected. The rebate claim has been correctly rejected on the ground that the procedure as set out under Notification No.21/2004 has not been followed.
