The services availed by a manufacturer for outward transportation of final products from the place of removal should be treated as an input service in terms of Rule 2(1)(ii) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 and thereby enabling the manufacturer to take credit of the service tax paid on the value of such services.
The transfer of brand name does not have any meaning for the buyer until and unless the know-how for the manufacture of the formulations sold under that particular brand name, is also transferred.
The activity of marketing agents was brought under the tax net with effect from 1-7-03 when BAS was introduced; same services could not be classifiable under C&F Agent Service for any previous period as the scope of C&F Agent service was not modified when BAS was introduced in the Finance Act, 1994.
6. We have thoroughly gone through the averments of both the sides. To appreciate the case of the Revenue, Revenue should have brought to record that Nyco is a consulting engineering firm providing engineering service commercially having been manned by professional qualified engineers. But primary object appears to be sharing of know how to participate in a joint venture to enjoy fruit
Service tax credit cannot be taken when service tax has not been shown to have been paid by service provider; once it is found that Cenvat credit was irregularly availed by the assessee and by implication to that extent the service tax on the output service was short paid, it has to be recovered under Rule 14 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004.
CCE (ST) Vs. M/s. EID Parry – Demands on Indian companies for tax on services of BAS received from persons abroad – held that “it is only after enactment of Section 66A that taxable services received from abroad by a person belonging to India are taxed in the hands of the Indian residents – Since Section 66A was introduced on 18.4.2006 much after the material period, the impugned order had to be sustained – revenue’s appeal rejected
In terms of the Board’s clarification dated 28-2-2006, the service rendered namely outsourcing of spot billing work by APCPDCL would come within the ambit of business support service which is liable to service tax only with effect from 2006.
In the present case, the only ground on which it was proposed to deny Cenvat Credit on Service Tax is the non-installation of mobile phones in the appellant’s premises. Neither is there any ground in the notice nor any finding that the calls made from the mobile were not relatable to the business of the assessee. In this view of the matter, the judgment of the Hon’ble Gujarat High Court squarely covers the issue in favour of the appellant. Following the same, I set aside the impugned order and allow the appeal.
A transaction in intellectual property (IP) along with the right to manufacture the licensed product is totally different from the technical assistance rendered by an engineer or a firm of engineers; when IP services are brought under the tax net without altering the scope of “Consulting Engineer Service” the new impost covers an activity hitherto not exigible to service tax under the head Consulting Engineer.
Rule-2(l) of Cenvat Credit Rules does not require that service has to be rendered at the factory of the manufacturer for the purpose of eligibility for service tax credit. Therefore the stand of the revenue that since the service was provided at the buyer’s premises credit is not admissible cannot be accepted. What has to be examined is whether the service provided is in or in relation to manufacture.
