After specific category is introduced as a taxable service in the statute from a specified date, the said activity cannot be a taxable entity or technical entry in any other services prior to that date.
The Explanation given by the CBEC vide its Circular No. 643/34/2002-CX dated 1-7-2002 cannot apply in the cases where the transaction value of the concerned goods is available on record; to ignore such value on the record and to take resort to the explanation given by the CBEC would virtually amount to defeat the mandate of Rule 3(4) which will result In giving overriding effect to the explanation of the CBEC over and above and contrary to the provisions in the statutory rule comprised under Rule 3(4) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2002.
Cenvat credit : Manufacturers are not debarred from availing benefit under Notification No. 8/2003-CE dated 1-3-2003 in relation to goods other than goods which are excluded from benefit of said notification while simultaneously seeking to avail benefit of Cenvat credit or Modvat credit in relation to such excluded goods provided they are cleared on payment of full duty
Till and until both the credit earned and the product on which the credit is earned are lawfully utilized, it cannot be said that the credit has been lawfully and completely utilized; of course, the utilization of credit and utilization of input may not necessarily be in relation to one and the same final product; it can be in relation to two different dutiable final products.
Appellant engaged in providing service of manpower supply – appellant defaulted in payment of service tax amounting to Rs.22.30 lakhs even though the amount of service tax had been collected from the customers – amount of Rs.20.37 lakhs paid during investigation – demand confirmed along with penalty and interest – Commissioner(A) order to make a pre-deposit of Rs.7.5 lakhs is not unreasonable as it covers approximately 25% towards penalty and full amount of service tax without taking into account the interest liability – appellant directed to pay the pre-deposit within six weeks and report compliance to Commr(A) who will decide case on merits: CESTAT
The instruction of the Board dated 31.10.07, sought to be relied upon by the department, is in the context of concluding proceedings on payment of service tax, interest and 25% of the amount as penalty on issue of show cause notice. In the present case, adjudication has been done by the original authority and penalties have been imposed under various sections including Section 78. Proviso to Section 78 clearly provides for payment of concessional penalty if the duty and interest determined by the authorities are paid within 30 days
. The respondent functions as loan processor between ICICI bank, Home Finance Co. Ltd. and the borrowers. The bank collects processing fee from the borrowers. Out of the amount so collected as processing fee, some portion is paid to the respondent as commission for their services. The department was of the view that the respondents rendered “Business Auxiliary Services” to the bank and, therefore, service tax was payable on the commission fee received by them from the bank. On being pointed out by the department, th
We find that review of an Order-in-Appeal involves application of mind and that the mind of the Committee of Commissioner was exercised so as to accept the impugned Order-in-appeal, and hence the question of once again reviewing the Order-in-Appeal does not arise. Further, the clarification is contrary to the decision of the apex Court in the case of Union of India Vs. Indian National Shipowners Association – 2010 (17) STR J57 (SC) = ( 2009-IST-07-SC-ST) , upholding the decision of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court w
It is not known as to why the Assistant Commissioner chose not to give a personal hearing which is a clear violation of Principles of Natural Justice. The original authority has shown total disregard for the principles of natural justice in not granting personal hearing before passing the adjudication order. There is no indication that the respondent was delaying the adjudication proceedings as the reply has been promptly submitted by the respondents as has been duly noted by the original authority. He has held that the respondents have not produced any evidence to prove that the charge raised by them on the main service provider has been included on the tenable value of the main service provider
The respondents is a manufacturer of satellite components and aircraft components classifiable under Chapter sub-heading 88033000 and they are paying excise duty on these goods. They are also providing service of renting of immovable property coming under Section 65(105) (zzzz) of Finance Act, 1994. The respondents have availed credit of excise duty paid on capital goods and inputs and service tax paid on input service.
