Interest on refund of pre-deposit amount is payable from the date of receipt of order of the tribunal by the commissioner. Interest to be paid on amount of pre deposit at the rate prescribed under the statutory provisions of the Act and not as per rate determined on equitable principles by Tribunal.
The only ground on which the refund claim has been rejected is that the original copy of TR-6 challan was not produced. Since according to the appellant, the original copy is now available with them, the appellant are directed to produce the same before the original Adjudicating Authority. The impugned order is, therefore, set aside and the matter is remanded to the original Adjudicating Authority for reconsidering the refund application on merits after taking into account the original copy of the TR-6 challan produced by the appellant. The same can be accepted, if on verification, the department is satisfied about its authenticity.
Whether, in the remanded matters, the appellant should be required to establish integral connection between the service and the manufacture of final products for the benefit of CENVAT credit on the service as held by the learned Member (Judicial) relying on the Hon’ble High Court’s judgment in the case of Ultratech Cement Ltd (vide supra)
In the instant case, the refund claim was filed on 2/1/2009. The learned Consultant’s contention is that the marginal delay of 3 days should be condoned. Since there is a delay of three days, it is not within the power of the authorities to condone the delay in filing the refund claim, that too a time limit which is envisaged in the Notification.
I find that this is a case where the impugned period is from 01.04.05 to 15.09.05. The respondent assessees have taken service tax registration only on 06.12.05 and the very first return has been filed by them on 04.12.06, after a long delay. I also find that in para 2 (iv), there is an allegation of suppression of value of taxable service in the show cause notice dated 12.03.07.
Display of logo for promoting a brand not taxable under Business Auxiliary Services but Promotion of Brand of Goods, services, events, business entity, etc. w.e.f. 01.07.2010.
Section 67 of the Finance Act, providing for levy of service tax on the gross amount charged by the service provider for the service provided plus/minus the inclusions/exclusions as mentioned in Explanation 1 to this section, satisfy the test for correctness of the measure prescribed by Supreme Court in the case of UOI v. Bombay Tyre International
The appellant came up in appeal against Order-in-Original dated 27.7.2009 passed by learned Commissioner relating to the period July 2003 to January 2007, giving rise to following consequences
Service Tax – Condonation of delay in filing appeal – Submission of the learned Chartered Accountant that the appellant company had different division and departments situated in the same building at Bangalore and the receipt of the said order in one department was not communicated to the legal department to prefer an appeal, is an argument without merits. It is for the appellant company to arrange his business in a manner that he takes action exercising his legal right of appeal with due diligence.
It is submitted that destination charges or ground handling charges were collected by MSIL for storage and warehousing service in relation to the clearance of goods. The service formed an integral part of service relating to clearance of goods and the charges were towards storage and warehousing.
