It was held that till the decision in the case of ITC Ltd., all the decisions were in favour of the respondents and therefore invoking suppression or mis-declaration etc. for confirmation of demand is not in order. Further, I also take note of the submission made by the ld. Counsel that even the original adjudicating authority has taken a view that the failure on the part of the assessee is acceptable as a bona fide error and cannot be attributed to be wilful intention to evade tax. In view of the above discussion, appeal fails on the ground of limitation alone and I am not going into merits since appeal can be rejected only on this ground. Appeal filed by the Revenue as well as the Cross-objection filed by the respondent get disposed of.
Appellant is not simply a provider of output service but also a manufacturer of the excisable goods. The appellant contended that till 28-2-2008 for the manufacture of final products the service of Goods Transport Agency remained an output service and, therefore, Cenvat Credit was permissible to be utilized for payment of service tax upto 28-2-2008.
Explanation in Rule 6(1) does not make any provision as to which rate of tax will apply in situation like the one at hand (whether that on date of receipt of value or that on date of providing service). This explanation says that the service provider need to pay tax only on that portion of value for which service tax has been provided. In the instant case the Appellant paid tax on the full value received.
On verification of the records, we find that the details submitted by the applicants on 14.05.2007, does not cover the amount of tickets sold prior to 01.05.2006 for the journey carried out on or after 01.05.2006. We find that this is a suppression of fact on the part of the applicants prima facie therefore, the extended period of limitation has rightly been invoked. We further find that there is no dispute on the liability of service tax.
On a perusal of the definition of ‘Business Auxiliary Service’ as it stood during the material period, we are of the prima facie view that the appellant was functioning as a commission agent for AAI by collecting PSF for AAI and remitting the collections to them. It is not in dispute that the collection charges at the rate of 2.5% on PSF
we find that the appellant’s claim that they have produced some records and the documents, indicating that the income mentioned in the balance sheet may not be totally out of the income as a recovery agent is borne out from the Chartered Accountant’s certificate and adjudicating authority has recorded the same in the submissions made by assessee. It is also seen that the adjudicating authority has recorded that the appellant has produced a Chartered Accountant’s certificate. Suffice to say that the adjudicating authority should have given a finding on this issue, we are of the view that the entire issue needs to be re-considered by lower authority. We also find that the issue involved in this case also needs to be appreciated from the factual matrix, as regards the receipts indicated in the balance sheet of the appellant and the certificate issued by Chartered Accountant to that extent. It our opinion, this exercise is better left to the adjudicating authority to appreciate all the evidences available and that may be produced by the appellant.
There is no dispute about the fact that the appellant has taken CENVAT credit of the duty paid by them. Whether the duty is paid rightly or wrongly, is not the concern of the appellant who is only a recipient of the goods/service. So long as duty is paid either on the goods or the service, appellant is rightly entitled for the credit. This Tribunal in their own case for the previous period has allowed such credit. There is nothing on record to show that the department has appealed against that order of the Tribunal. In view of the position, I allow the appeal with consequential relief, if any.
The short question for consideration in this case is which is the place of removal in respect of exports? Is it the factory premises or is it the port of shipment? In the case under consideration, the appellant has availed service tax credit on GTA service, which was utilised for transportation of goods from the factory to the port of shipment.
The appellant/assessee herein filed a refund application with the authorities on the ground that the service tax paid by them should not have been paid. The adjudicating authority after following the Principles of natural justice, rejected the refund claim on various grounds, including the ground of unjust enrichment.
The appellant/assessee availed the benefit under the Works Contracts Composition Scheme in respect of contracts entered into prior to 1-6-2007. The respondent/department issued show cause notice proposing service tax, interest and penalty on the ground that the petitioner was not eligible to avail the benefit under the Composition Scheme. Being aggrieved, the petitioner went in appeal under Section 35B of the Central Excise Act, 1944 (the Act).
