The amalgamation order issued by the Ministry of Petroleum is undisputedly dated 30.04.07. However, the said order specified 01.04.04 as the effective date of merger. Apparently, the process of amalgamation took considerable time and the same has been effected only by order dated 30.04.07. Such retrospective approval does pose certain practical difficulties. The effect of the order is that from 01.04.04, IBP ceased to exist as a separate company. That being the case, the transaction between IBP and IOCL during the interim period could not be treated as between a service provider and service recipient. As the order of the Ministry of Petroleum clearly mentioned 01.04.04 as the effective date of amalgamation, notwithstanding the date of approval given by the Registrar of Companies being 02.05.07, the specific date indicating the date of amalgamation as 01.04.04 should be accepted.
The original authority rejected the claim of refund of service tax paid on the export services claimed by the appellants, in terms of Notification No. 41/07-ST dated 06.10.07, on the ground that part of the claim was not substantiated with relevant documents and part of the claim has been filed after the period six months prescribed for claiming the refund in terms of the said Notification
Where there was no separate maintenance/repair contract between the parties, the Commissioner had rightly held that in the absence of any maintenance & repair contract, the demand based on rate or value contract work was not sustainable.
After specific category is introduced as a taxable service in the statute from a specified date, the said activity cannot be a taxable entity or technical entry in any other services prior to that date.
The Explanation given by the CBEC vide its Circular No. 643/34/2002-CX dated 1-7-2002 cannot apply in the cases where the transaction value of the concerned goods is available on record; to ignore such value on the record and to take resort to the explanation given by the CBEC would virtually amount to defeat the mandate of Rule 3(4) which will result In giving overriding effect to the explanation of the CBEC over and above and contrary to the provisions in the statutory rule comprised under Rule 3(4) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2002.
Cenvat credit : Manufacturers are not debarred from availing benefit under Notification No. 8/2003-CE dated 1-3-2003 in relation to goods other than goods which are excluded from benefit of said notification while simultaneously seeking to avail benefit of Cenvat credit or Modvat credit in relation to such excluded goods provided they are cleared on payment of full duty
Till and until both the credit earned and the product on which the credit is earned are lawfully utilized, it cannot be said that the credit has been lawfully and completely utilized; of course, the utilization of credit and utilization of input may not necessarily be in relation to one and the same final product; it can be in relation to two different dutiable final products.
Appellant engaged in providing service of manpower supply – appellant defaulted in payment of service tax amounting to Rs.22.30 lakhs even though the amount of service tax had been collected from the customers – amount of Rs.20.37 lakhs paid during investigation – demand confirmed along with penalty and interest – Commissioner(A) order to make a pre-deposit of Rs.7.5 lakhs is not unreasonable as it covers approximately 25% towards penalty and full amount of service tax without taking into account the interest liability – appellant directed to pay the pre-deposit within six weeks and report compliance to Commr(A) who will decide case on merits: CESTAT
The instruction of the Board dated 31.10.07, sought to be relied upon by the department, is in the context of concluding proceedings on payment of service tax, interest and 25% of the amount as penalty on issue of show cause notice. In the present case, adjudication has been done by the original authority and penalties have been imposed under various sections including Section 78. Proviso to Section 78 clearly provides for payment of concessional penalty if the duty and interest determined by the authorities are paid within 30 days
. The respondent functions as loan processor between ICICI bank, Home Finance Co. Ltd. and the borrowers. The bank collects processing fee from the borrowers. Out of the amount so collected as processing fee, some portion is paid to the respondent as commission for their services. The department was of the view that the respondents rendered “Business Auxiliary Services” to the bank and, therefore, service tax was payable on the commission fee received by them from the bank. On being pointed out by the department, th
