The applicant has contended before the adjudicating authority that supply of electricity is supply of ‘goods’ and the same is exempted as per Notification no. 12/2003-ST wherein it has been clarified that supply of goods shall not form part of taxable service.
There is a fallacy in above reasoning of Commissioner (Appeals). The same service for which the contractor has procured an order, does not stand actually provided by him but is passed on to sub-contractor, who provided the actual service, it cannot be said that the contractor is liable to pay duty on the same.
The adjudicating Commissioner has also taken objection to the fact that the refunds have been made by way of credit and not by issue of cheques. In this respect, we note that a large number of transactions are involved and the industry practice is to make refunds by way of book adjustment allowing credit
The applicant were discharging their Service Tax liability in respect of tuition fee being charged by them from their students. Their premises were visited by the officers on 7.1.2010 and scrutiny of various records maintained by the appellants revealed that no Service Tax was being paid by them on pre-schooling coaching, sale of text books, conducting of mock test series etc.
Confirmation of demand under a category different than one proposed in the Show Cause Notice cannot be upheld. The Tribunal had, for the above proposition, relied up the earlier decision of the Tribunal in the case of Mahakoshal Beverages (P.) Ltd. v. CCE [2009] 18 STT 383 (Bang. – CESTAT).
It is an admitted fact on record that the appellant received the Order-in-Original on 30th December, 2009 and filed appeal before learned Commissioner (Appeals) on 2.1.2012. So also admittedly, there was a delay of more than two years in seeking appeal remedy before the learned first appellate authority.
We do not see any merit in the argument of the appellants that they were only an intermediary and not doing the work themselves and hence their activities did not amount to any service. Any service provided in relation to installation of electrical and electronic devices, including wirings or fittings, became taxable from 16-06-05.
When we read meaning of consignment note with the taxing entry under section 65 (105) (zzp) of the aforesaid Act it is inconceivable to bring the bullock carts transporting sugar cane to the fold of law, since law requires the transport made by goods carriage should only be brought to tax.
Input service distribution is a facility granted to a manufacturer/service provider who operates from a number of premises. There is no restriction under the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004, with regard to the period for availing CENVAT credit of service tax paid. In other words, a manufacturer/input service provider can avail CENVAT credit of the service tax paid irrespective of any time limitation. The only condition to be satisfied is that they should have paid the service tax prior to availing the credit.
It is an admitted fact that the appellants are liable to pay service tax under Works Contract services with effect from 1-6-2007 and the appellants did not get themselves registered with the service tax department from 1-6-2007. The ground taken by the appellants is that they were not aware of the fact that they are liable to pay service tax under works’ contract with effect from 1-6-2007 is not sustainable, as ignorance of law is not an excuse.
