Consideration charged for the service provided shall include income tax deducted at source as per terms of contract and is in accord with Section 66A read with Rule 7(1) of the Service Tax (Determination of Value) Rules 2006 for the reason that net price of contract agreed to be paid to foreign consultant was to include income deducted at source thereon to be price also. Thus the tax demand on the assessable value comprising the consideration inclusive of income tax deducted at source relating to the period (9.4.2006 to September 2007) which was agreed to be price of the contract sustains.
From the Board’s Circular dated 19/01/2010, it is abundantly clear that refund of Cenvat credit can be allowed irrespective of when the credit was taken in case of service providers exporting 100% of their services. From the facts narrated in the order dated 13/01/2012, wherein the refund claim has been partly allowed, it is evident that the appellant was continuously undertaking exports during the said period and there were no domestic clearances. Therefore, in terms of the Board circular and also the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Chamundi Textiles (Silk Mills) Ltd., (supra), the appellant is eligible for the refund of the entire amount of service tax credit paid by them on the input service irrespective of when the credit was taken.
This appeal filed by the department is directed against an order of the Commissioner (Appeals) wherein certain refund claim was held to be admissible to the respondent and the amount for refund was directed to be quantified by the lower authority. The only ground raised in this appeal is that the learned Commissioner (Appeals) passed a remand order without having the power of remand.
SSI exemption Notification No. 6/2005-ST dated 01.3.2005 as amended vide Notification No. 8/2008-ST dated 01.3.2008, grants the benefit of exemption of service tax per year, provided that the assessee has not crossed the threshold limit of rupees ten lakhs in the preceding financial year.
In this case, there is no dispute that even though the bill is in the name of company C/o employee’s name, the payment for the service has been made by the company only. I also find that the submission of the appellant that employee’s name was put for internal purpose is also reasonable since the company has to know who is utilizing the telephone so that they can monitor the utilization and also ensure that phone is not misused.
The applicant has contended before the adjudicating authority that supply of electricity is supply of ‘goods’ and the same is exempted as per Notification no. 12/2003-ST wherein it has been clarified that supply of goods shall not form part of taxable service.
There is a fallacy in above reasoning of Commissioner (Appeals). The same service for which the contractor has procured an order, does not stand actually provided by him but is passed on to sub-contractor, who provided the actual service, it cannot be said that the contractor is liable to pay duty on the same.
The adjudicating Commissioner has also taken objection to the fact that the refunds have been made by way of credit and not by issue of cheques. In this respect, we note that a large number of transactions are involved and the industry practice is to make refunds by way of book adjustment allowing credit
The applicant were discharging their Service Tax liability in respect of tuition fee being charged by them from their students. Their premises were visited by the officers on 7.1.2010 and scrutiny of various records maintained by the appellants revealed that no Service Tax was being paid by them on pre-schooling coaching, sale of text books, conducting of mock test series etc.
Confirmation of demand under a category different than one proposed in the Show Cause Notice cannot be upheld. The Tribunal had, for the above proposition, relied up the earlier decision of the Tribunal in the case of Mahakoshal Beverages (P.) Ltd. v. CCE [2009] 18 STT 383 (Bang. – CESTAT).
