We find that show cause notice stands issued on 7-2-2007 for the period 1-7-2003 to 31-8-2004, thus invoking the longer period of limitation. Tribunal in the case of Brij Motors (P.) Ltd. v. CCE [Final Order No. ST/601/2011, dated 22-11-2011] as [2012 (25) STR 489 (Tri – Delhi)] has taken note of the fact that the were decisions of the Tribunal holding in favour of the assessees and as such has held the demand to be barred by limitation.
Mere publication of name of the company and name of the product along with details relating to price, packaging and dosage would not promote the sale or marketing of the product but the information would be of use only for the chemists/druggists. In fact that information would not be of use even to the chemist who was required to dispense medicines in the shop.
Provision of Section 73(3) and explanation (ii) to said Section (which was introduced from 8.5.10), specifically indicate that if Service Tax liability and interest thereof stand deposited, there is no need for issuing Show-Cause Notice even for penalty. I find that the ld. Counsel was correct in relying upon the judgment in the case of Krishna Security & Detective Services (supra). Provisions of Section 73(3) are very clear and the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Krishna Security & Detective Services (supra) also lay down the ratio that no penalty can be imposed if the Service Tax liability and interest thereof stand deposited under the Section 73(3).
The appellant filed this appeal against the impugned order whereby the demand of service tax on the ground that the appellants, for the purpose of paying service tax, did not include the value of materials used by them for providing such service. The contention of the appellant is that demand is time-barred as the show-cause notice was issued on 22.9.2006 demanding service tax for the period 16.7.2001 to 31.3.2005 by invoking extended period on the ground of suppression. The appellant submitted that the Tribunal, in CCE v. R.K. Photo studio vide Final Order Nos. ST/503-504/2011 dated 25.8.2011, after taking into consideration the Board Circular F. No. 233/2/2003-CX dated 7.4.2004, held that the demand beyond the normal period is not sustainable, in such type of case.
Even if it was accepted that the canteen service provided by the assessee was necessary for improving the efficiency of the worker and the same was eligible for Cenvat credit but in terms of Larger Bench decision in the case of CCE v. GTC Industries Ltd. [2008] 17 STT 63 (Mum. – CESTAT) there is no dispute about the fact that as part of the cost of providing canteen service had been recovered from the workers and to that extent the assessee would not be eligible for the Cenvat credit.
Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Singh Enterprises v. Commissioner 2005 (189) ETL A-113 (SC) has held that Commissioner (Appeals) has no power to condone the delay beyond the period of 90 days. We also refer to a listed decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Rajasthan Mechanical Works vide which Delhi High Court judgement was upheld.
There is no dispute about role of consignment agent attributing to the promotion of the sale. Once sale promotion falls within Rule 2 (l) of Cenvat Credit Rules 2004, admissibility of cenvat credit of the service tax paid in respect of such service availed is permissible.
The appellants were engaged in the business of renting out low-floor buses to Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation (RSTRC) on contract basis. RSTRC was using the buses as stage carriers for transportation of persons. The appellants did not pay service tax on the consideration received from RSTRC during the period 01-06-2007 to 31-12-2007.
The activity rendered by the assessee was of purchasing of prepaid SIM cards from mobile company and selling them to the ultimate customers or through dealers. For doing such an activity, the mobile company given an amount as a commission which according to the revenue was liable for service tax. The issue involved in the instant case was of service tax liability on the commission received which was the question in dispute before the Tribunal in various matters.
In this appeal of the department, the short question to be considered is whether the view taken by the lower authorities that the respondent was entitled to take CENVAT credit on stockbroker’s service which was used by the respondent for acquiring shares in another company with which the respondent had entered into an agreement for purchase of electricity for the purpose of manufacture of excisable product is correct or not.
