It is evident that all the services are essential in running the business of rendering the output service ‘Business Auxiliary Service’ which is exported. If that be so, all the services come within the purview of Rule 2(l) of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 which defines the input service.
There is no dispute that the respondent has paid an amount as Service Tax liability on the income received from the non-members, working backwards the Service Tax liability. I find that the adjudicating authority, as correctly pointed out by the ld. Counsel, has recorded a factual finding that the respondent has not charged Service Tax on any of the amount which has been charged by him to the non-members. Both the lower authorities have correctly held that the respondent is not liable to discharge the Service Tax liability on the non-members under the category of Club & Association Services.
Apex Court in in the case of M.M. Rubber Co. (supra) of held that power under section 35E is a power of superintendence conferred on a superior authority to ensure that the subordinate officers exercise their powers under the Act correctly and properly and when a time limit is prescribed for exercise of this power,
The definition of ‘input service’, as given in Rule 2 (I) of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 has two parts. The main definition part during the period of dispute covered – “any service used by a provider of taxable service for providing in output service, or used by a manufacturer, whether directly or indirectly, in or in relation to the manufacture of final products and clearance of final products from the place of removal.” The inclusive portion during the period of dispute covered certain service and group of service specifically mentioned. The group of services mentioned in the inclusive portion is – “activities relating to business, such as auditing, accounting, financing,
In respect of port service, THC charges, REPO/BL charges etc. whether service provider was authorised or not, if the service tax has been paid towards port service, while granting refund, the refund sanctioning authority cannot sit in judgment to say that the service received was not port service. Once the services are covered under the statutory definition of port service and service tax has been paid, refund is admissible.
CESTAT, MUMBAI BENCH B.E. Billimoria & Co. Ltd. Versus Commissioner of Service Tax, Mumbai Application No. ST/S/729 of 2012 Appeal No. ST/211 of 2012 June 5, 2012 ORDER Ashok Jindal, Judicial Member Appellant are in appeal against the impugned order confirming the service tax demand of Rs. 14,28,30,465/- along with interest and equivalent penalty […]
The bank’s customers holding credit cards purchase goods from shops and the bank pays to the shop keeper on their behalf. Till the customers pay up the money to the bank, they are debtors and they stand in the shoes of borrowers. If that be the case, the amount transacted is a loan and interest must accrue to the bank in the event of delay in repayment thereof.
Assessee was promoter and marketer of services of banks as well as insurance company, and was auxiliary in the chain of economic activity carried on by them. Assessee had accordingly provided Business Auxiliary Service to the banks as well as insurance company.
The terms and conditions of the relevant Agreements show that the appellant was, in fact, using their infrastructure, staff and expertise to market products of the Banks. In both the Agreements, the appellant was referred to as Direct Sales Association/Agent.
It is undisputed in this case that the respondent is providing services for loading & unloading within the premises of M/s. J.M. Baxi & Co. The judgment of the Hon’ble High Court of Jharkhand categorically has settled law in as much, that any services provided within the factory premises would not come under the definition of Cargo Handling Services
