I, however, find that prior to 10/09/2004 collection of cheques / bills etc. was not part of business auxiliary service and scope of customer care service cannot be stretched to cover such collection prior to this date under sub-clause (iii) of definition. Customer care service relates to post sale services rendered to the users / consumers by the service provider who provide this care on behalf of the client. No element of such customer care is present in the activity of collection of bills etc. Further, if collection of chequ
We find that as per the appellant, major amount of demand working out to Rs.12.07 crores pertains to capital goods credit utilised. We note that the Commissioner wrongly found that the restriction contained in Rule 6(3) of CCR as regards the use of cenvat credit above 20% of the tax paid applied to credit of capital goods also. In the circumstances, we set aside the impugned order and remand the entire case to the Commissioner for a fresh decision on all issues after hearing the assessee. The appeal is allowed by way of remand. Stay petition is also disposed of.
We have heard both sides. The provision of security at the Calcutta guest house has no nexus or relation with the business of manufacture of the assessees, who are manufacturers of ‘Titanium-di-oxide’, ‘Ferrous Sulphate’ etc., in Tuticorin. Therefore, the security service for the guest house cannot be considered as an input service so as to make credit of tax paid on such services admissible to the assesses. I, therefore, uphold the impugned order and reject the appeal.
As per clause (zr) of section 65(105), service tax is leviable on any service provided to any person, by a cargo handling agency in relation to cargo handling service. The argument of the Appellant is that they could never understand that they were a cargo handling agency because they are in the business of warehousing of goods for which they were already paying service tax. This was a service provided by the contractors and the charges were recovered from the customers who use such services. But as a corporation owned by the Rajasthan State they did not want to enter into dispute on this issue with the Union of India and as soon as the issue was pointed out to them they started paying tax for the charges collected by them and paid to their contractor who was providing the service.
The dispute in the present appeal relates to the availment of service tax paid on the insurance service availed by the appellant to cover the damage or loss to the goods exported by the appellant, in as much as the said policy is for covering the goods in the foreign countries except India, lower authorities have held that the same cannot be considered as input services.
Demands for service tax with interest as applicable has been confirmed against the appellants and equal amount of penalty has also been imposed under Section 78 of Finance Act, 1994. The appellant one non profit organisations registered under Bombay Public Trust Act and is engaged in providing service of health club/sports activities to its members. Though separate orders have been passed, issue involved is same. Hence a common order is passed.
I note that in the case of Commissioner of Central Excise, Nagpur Vs Ultra Cement Ltd. = ( 2010-TIOL-745-HC-MUM-ST ) , the Nagpur Bench of Hon’ble Bombay High Court has held that credit of service tax would be allowed except where the cost of food has been recovered from the employee/worker. Although, ld. counsel submits that a token amount of Re.1/- has been collected from the employees/workers of the assessee’s company, since show cause notice does not advert to this factual position nor do the orders of the authorities below consider this aspect, the impugned order is set aside and the case remitted to the adjudicating authority for fresh decision in the light of the Hon’ble High Court judgment cited supra.
The amalgamation order issued by the Ministry of Petroleum is undisputedly dated 30.04.07. However, the said order specified 01.04.04 as the effective date of merger. Apparently, the process of amalgamation took considerable time and the same has been effected only by order dated 30.04.07. Such retrospective approval does pose certain practical difficulties. The effect of the order is that from 01.04.04, IBP ceased to exist as a separate company. That being the case, the transaction between IBP and IOCL during the interim period could not be treated as between a service provider and service recipient. As the order of the Ministry of Petroleum clearly mentioned 01.04.04 as the effective date of amalgamation, notwithstanding the date of approval given by the Registrar of Companies being 02.05.07, the specific date indicating the date of amalgamation as 01.04.04 should be accepted.
The original authority rejected the claim of refund of service tax paid on the export services claimed by the appellants, in terms of Notification No. 41/07-ST dated 06.10.07, on the ground that part of the claim was not substantiated with relevant documents and part of the claim has been filed after the period six months prescribed for claiming the refund in terms of the said Notification
Where there was no separate maintenance/repair contract between the parties, the Commissioner had rightly held that in the absence of any maintenance & repair contract, the demand based on rate or value contract work was not sustainable.
