Since a substantial amount has already been paid and regarding the balance amount also the appellant claims to have paid but does not have the evidence in view of the destruction of documents in flood, I consider that the appellant has made out a strong prima facie case for waiver of pre-deposit and grant of stay. Accordingly, the requirement of pre-deposit of service tax demanded with interest and penalty is waived and stay against recovery is granted during the pendency of appeal.
After the amendment of Rule 6 of CENVAT credit Rules, 2004 by Finance Act, 2010, in view of the provisions section 73 of Finance Act, 2010, when an assessee gave a calculation of credit attributable to the inputs used in the manufacture of exempted products, the only option available to Revenue was to either accept the calculation or say what is wrong with the calculation and give Revenue’s calculation with proper basis and ask the assessee to rebut Revenue’s calculation. It was no longer open to demand 10% of the price or 5% of the price as the case may be of the exempted products. Therefore, we feel that the order has not been passed properly. Therefore, after waiving the requirement of predeposit for hearing the appeal, we proceed to decide the appeal itself.
The Counsel for the appellant submits that for the purpose of calculation, Revenue is taking into account the entire receipts of the appellants whereas the taxable value should be taken after allowing abatement of 50% in terms of Notification No. 1/-90ST and once only taxable value is taken into account, the turnover is below the value as laid down in the small scale notification and they were eligible for exemption. The Assistant Commissioner set aside the show-cause notice but Revenue filed appeal and Commissioner (Appeals) has confirmed the demand.
Assessee procured mutual fund subscription for SKP Securities Ltd. and Eastern Financial Ltd. The applicants are not mutual fund distributors nor they are agents thereof. The applicants could not produce any evidence in this regard. Therefore, the case law in the case of P.N. Vijay Financial Services (P.) Ltd. (supra) us not applicable to their case. Accordingly, the benefits of Notification are also not available to them. The applicants also could not produce any evidence that they have received commission directly from mutual fund companies being a registered mutual fund distributors.
In the instant case, the expenditure in respect of CMC charges was incurred by the assessee in discharging its primary responsibility as a CHA. In view of the clear provisions of rule 5 of the Service-tax (Determination of value) Rules, 2006, the CMC charges are to be included in the assessable value of the taxable service provided by the assessee. As regards the issue of time bar, it was found that the assessee never disclosed the fact that CMC charges are recovered from its customers in the ST-3 returns in which the statutory returns were filed by the assessee, wherein there was a separate column in which the assessees had to show the reimbursable expenses. Therefore, there was no merit in contention of assessee in respect of time bar also.
The assessee was registered with the Central Excise Department on its own on 16-6-2005. It was a proprietorship concern and it was required to file the service tax returns quarterly, which it had been filing meticulously with the Department. However, due to non-understanding of the relevant provisions of law, there was some short-payment of service tax during the period from August 2005 to October, 2006. However, when the said short payment was brought to the assessee’s notice in November, 2006 by the Visiting Departmental Officers, the entire amount of service tax was paid.
In the case of Idea Mobile Communication Ltd. v. CCE&C [2011] 32 STT 262/12 taxmann.com 307 (SC), the Apex Court has confirmed the view taken by the High Court wherein it was held that a transaction of selling of SIM card to the subscriber is also a part of the ‘service’ rendered by the service provider to the subscriber. The contention of the assessee that the amount paid as sales tax be considered as sufficient compliance of section 35F of the Central Excise Act, read with section 83 of the Finance Act could not be accepted. As the Tribunal has no power to adjust such payments as the same is created under the special Act, i.e., Customs Act, Finance Act and Central Excise Act. Therefore, the Tribunal has no power to adjust the payment of sales tax against service tax. As discussed above, the assessee had failed to make out a case for 100 per cent waiver of pre-deposit.
Once the payment of service tax had been made by service provider to Treasury, assessee may not be denied the benefit of Cenvat credit, subject to appropriate examination of the allegation in the show-cause notice and proving use of the service in accordance with law. The original authority had to be satisfied that requirement of rule 9(5) of the Cenvat Credit Rules was fulfilled and service-tax paid was relating to input service that was ultimately used in manufacture of excisable goods. If he was satisfied that there was nexus, dependability, integrity, indispensability and inevitability, there may not be a difficulty to consider the claim of the assessee.
Notification No. 41/2009-ST, dated 23-10-2009 exempted a works contract in respect of canals, other than canals primarily used for commercial or industrial purposes, from the whole of the service tax leviable thereon. This notification appears to be the first of its kind issued after introduction of works contract service as a taxable service, and did not provide for retrospective operation. Therefore, the arguments advanced by the assessee, claiming support from a judgment of the Apex Court in W.P.I.L. Ltd. v. CCE 2005 (181) ELT 359 (SC) and praying for exemption under the said notification cannot be accepted.
Appellant has rented out / leased the land along with the entire building, swimming pool and restaurant, bar, parking etc. with all the facilities as provided in the base building and the amenities and facilities under an agreement on monthly rental basis and a hotel is being run in the said building by M/s. Royal Orchid Banjara Pvt. Ltd. – in view of Explanation-1, clause (d) to the entry in section 65(105)(zzzz), it cannot be said to renting of immovable property.
