Visa facilitators, merely facilitate the procurement of visa and directly assist individuals who intend to travel abroad, to complete the immigration formalities. Visa facilitators collect certain statutory charges like visa fee, certification fee, attestation fee, emigration fee, etc. from the visa applicant, which are remitted to the respective authorities, and in addition collect service charges for themselves as remuneration for the assistance provided by them to obtain the visa.
In this case of specific rate of duty, prima facie, the ‘ place of removal’ would be the ‘ place of removal’ for the purpose of Rule 4 of Central Excise Rules, i.e. the places on removal from where the duty is liable to be paid, which in this case, is the factory gate of Sonadih factory, as the duty on clinker becomes payable at the time of removal from Sonadih factory.
Appellant have already paid service tax from their Modvat credit, the deposit of the service tax collected from the buyers would amount to double payment. It may be noted that the proceedings are for confirmation of demand in terms of section 73A of the Finance Act which relates to the tax collected by an assessee from the buyers, which is not required to be collected.
As regards benefit of service tax paid for shifting of household goods of employees, as fairly submitted by the learned counsel for the assessee, the issue is covered against them by the decision of this Tribunal cited above and accordingly the demand for service tax is upheld.
Obtaining export incentives is directly relatable to manufacture. Manufacturer while manufacturing goods for export and for working out the cost takes into account the export incentives. Export incentives play a very big role in the manufacture and export of goods. This being the position, service tax incurred in respect of services for obtaining export incentives can be definitely related to manufacturing activity and therefore the decision of the learned Commissioner holding that respondent is eligible for the input service tax credit is to be sustained.
Issue: Whether there is need for one to one co-relation of CENVAT credit availed on input services towards payment of output services? Facts: The appellants are manufacturer of transmission towers and also providing services of erection, commissioning & installation, management, maintenance or repair, testing, inspection of these towers etc. for their activity of manufacturing and providing the above services, the appellants availed CENVAT credit on inputs, capital goods and input services.
Question whether the place where goods are stored after clearance from the factory on payment of duty can be considered as place of removal for the purpose of Rule 2(l) of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 is no longer res integra because of the clarification issued by the CBEC in the matter.
I do not agree with the argument that the time-limit under Notification dated 1-3-2011 cannot be made applicable to the claims filed before that date and pending on that date. I also consider the fact that even under the earlier notification, the Deputy Commissioner had power to condone the delay. The delay involved was only 17 days and when a public authority is given any power, he is expected to exercise it unless there is a reason for not exercising such power.
The assessee was required to pay 10% of value of the final exempted goods in terms of the provisions of rule 6(3)(b) of Cenvat Credit Rules. Explanation-1 attached to the said rule is to the effect that such amount shall be paid by the manufacturer by debiting the Cenvat credit or otherwise. As this amount payable at the time of clearances of the exempted final products is primarily intended to counter-effect the credit availed on the inputs used in the manufacture of such final exempted products;
No doubt, mere submission of document shall not ipso facto grant relief to claimant. But once the facts and circumstances of the case bring out the identity of the receipient of service, denial of cenvat credit may cause absurdity and when claim is otherwise permissible. Added to this, the claimant appellant should not make multiple claim using same document in different locations to avail cenvat credit and ensure that no jeopardy is caused to Revenue. But such an allegation of multiple claim is absent in the present case.
