Issue: Whether there is need for one to one co-relation of CENVAT credit availed on input services towards payment of output services? Facts: The appellants are manufacturer of transmission towers and also providing services of erection, commissioning & installation, management, maintenance or repair, testing, inspection of these towers etc. for their activity of manufacturing and providing the above services, the appellants availed CENVAT credit on inputs, capital goods and input services.
Question whether the place where goods are stored after clearance from the factory on payment of duty can be considered as place of removal for the purpose of Rule 2(l) of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 is no longer res integra because of the clarification issued by the CBEC in the matter.
I do not agree with the argument that the time-limit under Notification dated 1-3-2011 cannot be made applicable to the claims filed before that date and pending on that date. I also consider the fact that even under the earlier notification, the Deputy Commissioner had power to condone the delay. The delay involved was only 17 days and when a public authority is given any power, he is expected to exercise it unless there is a reason for not exercising such power.
The assessee was required to pay 10% of value of the final exempted goods in terms of the provisions of rule 6(3)(b) of Cenvat Credit Rules. Explanation-1 attached to the said rule is to the effect that such amount shall be paid by the manufacturer by debiting the Cenvat credit or otherwise. As this amount payable at the time of clearances of the exempted final products is primarily intended to counter-effect the credit availed on the inputs used in the manufacture of such final exempted products;
No doubt, mere submission of document shall not ipso facto grant relief to claimant. But once the facts and circumstances of the case bring out the identity of the receipient of service, denial of cenvat credit may cause absurdity and when claim is otherwise permissible. Added to this, the claimant appellant should not make multiple claim using same document in different locations to avail cenvat credit and ensure that no jeopardy is caused to Revenue. But such an allegation of multiple claim is absent in the present case.
Landscaping of factory or garden certainly would fall within the concept of modernization, renovation, repair, etc. of the office premises. At any rate, the credit rating of an industry is depended upon how the factory is maintained inside and outside the premises. The Environmental law expects the employer to keep the factory without contravening any of those laws.
Prima facie, liability to pay service tax arises with reference to the place where service was provided rather than the place where consideration was collected
Supreme Court’s judgment in MIL India Ltd. v. CCE 2007 (210) ELT 188 wherein it was held that Parliament had taken away the power of remand from Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals) by amending Section 35A of the Central Excise Act w.e.f. 11/05/2001.
It is quite clear that the claimant has to show that the burden of excise duty has not been passed on to any other person and not only to the buyers. In this case, the purchaser being the defence organisation of Government of India, the question of passing on the excise duty to any other person does not arise and ordnance depot not being a manufacturer of any goods,
In the present case, during the course of scrutiny of the records of M/s Shah Precicast (P) Ltd. (Respondent), it was found that they had taken Cenvat credit on the strength of the Xerox copy of the bill of entry. Therefore, the Revenue issued a show-cause notice for wrong availment of Cenvat credit on the strength of Xerox copy of bill of entry and proposing penalty for suppression of facts with an intention to evade duty.
