The CESTAT (Ahmedabad Bench) in case of Orion Appliances Ltd. v. CST, Ahmedabad. [Arising out of Appeal No. ST/120/09 and order dated 07-05-2010J has observed that Rule 6(2) and Rule 6(3) of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 are not attracted in case where an assessee is providing ‘taxable output services’ and also undertaking ‘trading activity’.
BACHA MOTORS (P) LTD Vs CST, AHMEDABAD (CESTAT Ahemdabad)- It was also submitted that in several decisions of the Tribunal, reliance was placed on the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of M/s MIL India Ltd. 2007 (210) ELT 188 (S.C.) = (2007-TIOL-30-SC-CX) to support the view that the Commissioner has no power to remand. After considering all these decisions, I find that in the case of M/s MIL India, the main issue before Hon’ble Supreme Court was entirely different and hence it was only observation during the course of discussion of the issue wherein Hon’ble Supreme Court mentioned about the amendment of the Section.
Recently in the case of Kbace Tech Pvt. Ltd. v. CCE/CST CESTAT ruled that the refund or CENVAT credit on input services is allowed only if the services are consumed in the output service. It is held that the Board’s Circular No. 120/01/2010-ST, dated 19-1-10 does not have the effect of amending the statute and cannot be seen as authorizing sanction of refund if the credit of service tax does not relate to services consumed for providing the output service.
Appellant is engaged in the manufacture of pharmaceutical products and bulk drugs falling under Chapter 29 of Central Excise Tariff Act. It avails credit on inputs, packing materials, etc. The unit was converted into 100% EOU and its entire stock of inputs was transferred to EOU without reversing the credit availed thereon.
Learned Chartered Accountant submits that the excess amount paid in the subsequent period may be treated as mere deposit which can be adjusted against the earlier short payment and it may be paid alongwith interest. I am unable to accept the contention of the learned Chartered Accountant. The assessee paid the service tax of excess amount against the taxable service which cannot be treated as mere deposit. Therefore, such adjustment is contrary to the provisions of Rule 6(3) of the Rules. Hence, demand of tax on this issue is justified.
The question is whether the terms of the contract as given above is for supply of labourers or is for doing specific item of work. If it is for performance of specified items of work, the same would not be covered by the definition of service since the service covers manpower recruitment or supply.
The appellant is entitled to Cenvat Credit availed on the garden maintenance service which are used in or in relation to the manufacture of final products or used in relation to the business activity and in this case the services used by the appellants are in relation to the business activity, he is entitled for Cenvat Credit.
M/s. Converge Labs Software Technologies Pvt. Ltd. (‘Converge’) is a 100% export oriented unit (‘EOU’) operating under the Software Technology Parks of India (‘STPI’) Scheme and is engaged in the development and export of software. Notification No. 140/91-Cus dated 22nd October 1991 (‘subject Notification’), granted exemption from the Customs Duty to goods imported into India by a 100% EOU under the STPI Scheme subject to certain specified conditions.
Based on the aforementioned observation, the CESTAT held that the software imported by Appellant was only modified packaged software and not „Customized Software? and would not be eligible to the exemption under the subject notification, which applies only to the Custom designed software. Hence, CESTAT upheld the impugned order passed by the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals) and rejected the appeal.
M/s. Nirulas Corner House Pvt. Ltd. („the Appellants?) were engaged in the food and confectionary business. They had entered into an agreement with M/s. Sagar to permit them to run restaurants in the name of “Nirulas” as per the specified plans with regard to the location of the restaurant, area, interiors and other details. As per the terms of the agreement, it is the Appellants who decide the items that are to be sold by the restaurant, the method of preparation of the items, the quality and the prices of the items. The Appellants have even placed their employees in the restaurants to supervise the operations.
