The assessee received ‘turnover charges’, stamp duty, BSE charges, SEBI fees and Demat charges contending that the same was payable to different authorities and claimed that the same is not taxable. But the revenue taxed the same on the ground that such receipt by stock broker was liable to tax. The revenue failed to bring out whether the turnover charges and other charges in dispute in these appeals received by assessee were commission or brokerage.
Adjudicating authority seeks to include the value of free supplied materials received by the appellant in the gross value of the services rendered by the appellant. It is seen that after inclusion of gross value, the adjudicating authority has not given the benefit of Notification No. 15/2004, dated 10/09/2004 in the form of abatement of 67%.
Issue involved in the present appeal is whether the refund claim filed by the respondent is hit by the time limitation as prescribed under Section 11B of the Central Excise Act. The refund claim in present case was filed on 28th April 2010 for refund of service tax paid by them. The original authority in para 2.1 of the Order-in-Original has stated that the TR-6/GAR-7 challans filed along with the claim and the statement furnished by the claimant shows that the service tax payments were made during the period 2006-07 and 2007-08 and last such challan was dated 1st December 2007 and it was also noticed that service tax liability for the period May 2004 to March 2006 was discharged in May 2006. We find that refund claim was submitted by the respondent with the office of Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise on 28-4-2010 under Section 11B of the Central Excise Act as made applicable to the service tax matters vide Section 83 of the Finance Act, 1994. Refund claim was to be filed within a period of one year from the date of payment of excise duty/service tax. We, therefore, find that the refund claim was filed much after the time-limit of one year as prescribed under Section 11B of the Central Excise Act.
There being no dispute to the services rendered by the appellant under the category of Travel Agent Services, the benefit of notification which are there in the statute, should have been automatically be given to the assessee. Even in the absence of any such claim the benefit should have been granted to them. Be that as it may, the specific plea of the assessee that they are eligible for the benefit of Notification No. 6/2005-ST, cannot be disregarded for the services rendered up to the first four lakhs, during the period April 2005 to March 2006, for which the appellant is eligible for the benefit of notification, provided he has not crossed the limit of Rs. Four lakhs during the preceding Financial Year.
Service Tax – Construction of complex service -The Appellants argue that there is no relationship of service provider and service recipient between the Developer and the Land Owner. According to them it is a relationship in a joint venture for profit. Both the parties have joined together in the business of construction of complex and the land owner brings in the capital by way of his land. The Developer by way of his capital and services and they jointly construct the complex and use or sell the flats for profit. He argues that CBEC had clarified the position that no service arises in such context. This clarification dated 29-01-09 is examined later in this order.
There is no provision in the rules that credit was not available to unregistered manufactures. Manufacturers exempted from the registration do not cease to be a manufacturer of excisable goods. This case squarely covers the issue in this case also. Therefore, in respect of the goods manufactured during the period when the appellant was not registered, credit can be taken subsequently also. This view is further supported by the consistent stand taken by various judicial forums in the case of clandestine removals, even if the duty is paid subsequently, Cenvat credit on inputs used will be available to the assessee/manufacturer subject to the conditions that proper documents showing the payment of duty are available.
The first question that we have to consider is whether an agent of a principal who is also a dealer under the Act is entitled to the same rights as his principal has under the Act. Under the general law the agent merely represents his principal. Therefore, while functioning within the scope of the agency he can exercise all the rights which his principal could have exercised. In fact, in the case of an ordinary agency, the agent merely acts for his principal. This provision must hold good even under the Madras General Sales Tax Act unless otherwise provided therein.
Appellant is not entitled to claim CENVAT credit on the GTA service used by them for transportation of their final product from the place of removal for any period after 31/3/2008:
The Appellants are dealers of Ford Motor vehicles and they had entered into agreements with different banks and also with Non-Banking Financial Companies to market car-loan to potential customers. For loan taken by the customers, these appellants got commission from the banks and NBFCs. The issue in this appeal is whether service tax is to be paid on such commission categorizing the activity of the Appellants as “business auxiliary service”. Definition of BAS services had been substituted wef 10.09.2004 and in substituted definition services of commission agent were expressly included and since then only assessee started paying service tax. Assessee also contended that services provided by them were taxable under Business Support Services and not under Business Auxiliary Services
The first issue by the learned A.R. is that after sales service of the vehicle is not an ‘input service’ on the ground that the service has been availed after sale of the vehicle and expenses incurred towards manufacture of the vehicle are entitled for input service credit. We have gone through the Section 4(3) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 which deals with the issue as hereinunder :-
