In the case of M/s. L & T Sargent & Lundy Limited V/s. Commissioner of Central Excise & S.T., Vadodara, it was held that the requirement under Rule 6(4A) and 6(4B) of the Service Tax Rules, 1994 to intimate the department regarding adjustment of excess service tax paid
Subic Innovative Plastics (P.) Ltd. (the Appellant) had taken Cenvat credit on inputs and capital goods used in Research and Development (R&D) and Quality Control Laboratory situated in the factory premises.
The CESTAT Ahmedabad in the case of M/s Quippo Energy Private Ltd. vs. Commissioner of CE & ST held that the activities carried on by the assessee on imported gensets results into existence of a more functional & operational product catering the needs of industrial consumers
The CESTAT Ahmedabad in the case of Iwi Crogenic Vaporization System India held that The non-payment of recovered tax coupled with the fact of non-furnishing of the details in respect of unpaid part in periodical returns clearly establish the intention of assesse to evade the payment of service tax recovered. Therefore, in such a case penalty levied u/s 78 is sustainable in law.
The appellant challenged the charges particularly by showing various evidences of receipt of goods, Lorry Receipt, Purity Check report, Payment of Labour Bills and other details, which were not disputed by the lower authorities.
In the present case, it was found that the input supplier supplied input accompanied with Central Excise invoice. There is no dispute of genuinity of invoice. It is clearly evident from the statement of input supplied by the transporter. In such a situation
Tribunal observed that normally it is practice that in case of any doubt or ambiguity, taxing provision is normally construed in favour of the assessee but when it is case of granting some exemption then there should be strict interpretation.
The crucial fact required to be seen is whether the main appellant should have enquired beyond the cenvatable document showing payment of duty that whether the inputs were due to the result of manufacture or not.
Appellant is a registered mandap keeper and was issued a show cause notice. There could be a situation where the appellant could be under a bona fide belief as to not to discharge the Service Tax liability on the advance amount received, during the material period, the issue of Service Tax liability under the Mandap Keeper services also was in litigation finally settled by Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Tamilnadu Kalyana Mandapam Association v. Union of India[2004] 136 Taxman 596. I find that the appellant had discharged the Service Tax liability on being pointed out. As the appellant is not contesting the Service Tax liability and interest thereof, in my view, the lower authorities should not have issued the show cause notice as provisions of section 73(3) may apply in this case. Be that as it may, the judgment of the Tribunal in the case of Chintamani Mangal Karyalaya (P.) Ltd. (supra) in an identical issue, has held in favour of the appellant.
As regards fumigation charges, a specialized process for cleaning the containers, the Commissioner has allowed the claim on the ground that the fumigation is mandatory when agricultural products are exported and such fumigation can be done only by the Government approved agencies. Very same issue had come up before this Tribunal in the case of Ramdev Food Products (P.) Ltd. v. CCE [2012] 21 taxmann.com 410 (Ahd – CESTAT), wherein the Tribunal has taken a view that notification prescribed a condition that there has to be a written agreement between the buyer and the seller about testing and analysis of the product, if the service has been received without written agreement, the benefit of refund would not be admissible. In this case, fumigation is a specialized cleaning process, requiring to satisfy the condition of notification of written agreement between buyer and seller and ld. Counsel for the respondent fairly agree that they do not have a written agreement.
