In this case, the Service Tax demand has been confirmed on the ground that the service tax payable has not been debited in the CENVAT Credit account and it has not been reflected in the ST 3 return. In view of the fact that even in the cases of clandestine removal in Central Excise matters, while confirming the demand, the benefit of CENVAT Credit, subject to verification of records that proper documents are available and raw input/capital goods have been received, the benefit of CENVAT Credit is allowed.
Tribunal had considered the Larger Bench decision of the Tribunal in the case of Mahindra & Mahindra Limited 2005 ((190) ELT 301 before coming to the conclusion that when fabrication does not amount to manufacture, service tax is not leviable. Further, he also submits that the claim for exemption is on the ground that the contract was for construction of roads had been denied on the ground that contract was not produced.
3. As the respondents did not submit the required declaration in proper format, Revenue entertained a view that they were not entitled to the 75% abatement in terms of Notification No. 32/04-ST. Accordingly, proceedings were initiated against them by way of show cause notice dated 13.10.06 proposing to confirm the demand of Rs. 6,917/-. The said show cause notice culminated into an order passed by the original adjudicating authority confirming the demand and imposing penalties. However, on appe
It was contended by the appellants that they were not aware that they had to pay service tax. Though it was a fact that they have taken service tax registration, they never disclosed the nature of services rendered nor they furnished ST-3 returns, which was mandatory for a person providing taxable services. The question naturally arises that if they were not aware that they had to pay service tax, why should they take a service tax registration. We are of the opinion that non-furnishing of information or non-filing of returns resulted in non-payment of service tax and this action on the part of appellants tantamount to deliberate non-compliance with the provisions. In other words, this is only implying suppression of facts with an intent to evade payment of service tax. Therefore, the extended period, under Section 73(1) is rightly invoked by the Revenue.
Issue before us involved in the current case is regarding the contract of supply, erection, installation and commissioning of fire, hydraulic systems and the issue before us in the case of the appellants own case in Final Order dt. 22/7/2010 was for supply, erection, installation and commissioning of power systems and distribution systems.
First issue involved in the appeal is whether the Cenvat credit available on raw materials and services used for non-excisable goods is admissible to the appellants. Under the Cenvat Credit Rules, input means all goods used in or in relation to the manufacture of final products whether directly or indirectly and whether contained in the final product or not and Cenvat credit can be availed on the duty paid on any input received in the factory of manufacture of the final product.
The short question to be considered in this appeal filed by the department is whether the view taken by the lower appellate authority that the respondent is eligible for CENVAT credit on outdoor catering service used for serving food to their employees during the period of dispute (July to December 2007) is correct or not. After hearing both sides, the learned Deputy Commissioner (AR) representing the appellant submits that the benefit is not admissible to the respondent unless they prove that no part of the cost of providing the service was recovered from their employees.
Short question which has to be considered in this case is whether the respondent is entitled to claim CENVAT credit of service tax paid by themselves on GTA service which was used for transportation of their final product from factory to the port for export. The respondent recovered FOB value from the foreign buyer, implying that the ownership of the goods vested in the respondent upto the place and time of loading of the goods into the ship. If the appellant had duty liability, they would have paid it on an assessable value including the freight. On these facts, it can be held that the place of removal of the goods was the port of export. The definition of ‘input service’ under rule 2(l) of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 will squarely cover the above service which was used by the respondent for transportation of the goods from the factory to the place of removal.
Hon’ble Apex court in the case of P.C.PAulose vs. Commissioner of Central Excise & Customs, reported in. In that case the appellant was collecting entry fee at the airport on behalf of Airport Authority of India in terms of a licence agreement entered into between the appellant and the Airport Authority of India Ltd. The issue before the court was whether this activity would amount to a taxable service and the apex court held that the activity would get covered under section 65 clause 105 (zzm) of the Finance Act, 1994.
If intermediary service is subservient to the original transaction, mere break of the original transaction in transit does not bring out a different transaction. It may be stated that nature, character and terms of a contract decides incidence of tax of intermediate transaction. If the character of the service provided by intermediary in transit is GTA without the original transaction coming to an end, the service provided by an intermediary may not be construed to be a different transaction. But all intermediate transactions may not necessary be characterized as original transaction unless and until both transactions are integrally and indispensably related or connected to each other.
