The submission of the learned Counsel for the appellants is that the credit is mostly in respect of capital goods only and there is only a small portion of credit attributable to input services. He submits that the portion of Rule 6(3)(c) will apply only in respect of credit taken in respect of inputs and input services and not capital goods. When such credit alone is considered, the utilization is well within the prescribed limit in the said Rule and therefore, demand is not maintainable.
The appellants were sending their manager/ employees to hotels run by the subsidiary/ associate companies on deputation. They were recovering costs on actual basis and were not retaining any amount out of the payment made by the hotels run by the subsidiary/ associate companies. The contention of the Department is that the appellants were engaged in manpower supply service as they were supplying their manpower to hotels run by associate companies on a cost recovery basis.
As per provisions in Taxation of Services (Provided from Outside India and Received in India), Rules 2006 the question whether the service in question is imported is decided with reference to location of the recipient of service for service specified under section 65(105)(r) but is decided with reference to place of performance for service specified at section 65(105)(y). That is to say if the impugned service is classified as Management Consultancy, service tax is payable in the instant case but if it was classifiable as service of Market Research Agency then tax was not payable for the reason that the service is performed entirely outside India.
The decisions of the Tribunal in the case of CCE v. Future Polyesters Ltd. [Final Order No. 782 of 2011, dated 8-7-2011] is clearly to the effect that most of the impugned activities would not fall under the definition of Management Consultancy service. Though compliance with laws is part of the responsibilities of management such responsibility per se cannot bring it into the ambit of the words ‘in connection with the management of any organization’ used in section 65 (105)(r) and section 65(65) to tax such services
It is no longer, res integra that in a contract for providing service of the type involved in this case the service component and value of materials can be separated. Notification 12/2003-ST also recognises this principle. The only dispute that remains is whether value of materials sold “can be segregated based just on the value on which VAT is paid.
As observed by the lower authorities, according to Clause 2(f), the claim has to be filed within 1 year from the date of export of goods. As already observed, this becomes a statutory requirement and a substantive requirement and therefore, the Tribunal, being a creature of law, cannot go beyond the provisions of law and statutes and give relief.
The main grievance of the appellant is that the Commissioner got a verification report dated 30.12.2009 from the Assistant Commissioner (Anti-Evasion) which indicated the Service Tax liability as Rs. 55,80,580/- and the said report was not made available to them and the Commissioner has accepted the version given by the Assistant Commissioner (Anti-Evasion) without granting them an opportunity to contest the veracity of the report.
We find that show cause notice stands issued on 7-2-2007 for the period 1-7-2003 to 31-8-2004, thus invoking the longer period of limitation. Tribunal in the case of Brij Motors (P.) Ltd. v. CCE [Final Order No. ST/601/2011, dated 22-11-2011] as [2012 (25) STR 489 (Tri – Delhi)] has taken note of the fact that the were decisions of the Tribunal holding in favour of the assessees and as such has held the demand to be barred by limitation.
Mere publication of name of the company and name of the product along with details relating to price, packaging and dosage would not promote the sale or marketing of the product but the information would be of use only for the chemists/druggists. In fact that information would not be of use even to the chemist who was required to dispense medicines in the shop.
Provision of Section 73(3) and explanation (ii) to said Section (which was introduced from 8.5.10), specifically indicate that if Service Tax liability and interest thereof stand deposited, there is no need for issuing Show-Cause Notice even for penalty. I find that the ld. Counsel was correct in relying upon the judgment in the case of Krishna Security & Detective Services (supra). Provisions of Section 73(3) are very clear and the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Krishna Security & Detective Services (supra) also lay down the ratio that no penalty can be imposed if the Service Tax liability and interest thereof stand deposited under the Section 73(3).
