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.
In this case, the appellants had Calculated and paid the entire amount of credit with interest and on finding that there was a short-fall in payment, the proviso of Sec.73 (3) of the Finance Act, 1994 would come into play and, therefore, the concerned Central Excise Officer should have informed the assessee instead of issuing show-cause notice. Though the Revenue had one year time for issue of show-cause notice, instead of intimating the appellants who would have been willing to deposit the amount without any notice, they have issued show-cause notice in this case. The appellant was not disputing the merit of the stand taken by the revenue. Show-cause notice has been issued which in accordance with the provisions of Sec.73 (3) of the Finance Act, 1994, need not have been issued at all.
It was submitted by the learned A.R. that the appellant company being a limited company is not covered by the term association and exemption available is only to the association. However, it was pointed out by the learned counsel that the appellant is registered under Section 25 of the Companies Act, 1956 which provides that the word “limited” can be dispensed with in respect of an association formed as a limited company for promoting commerce, art, science, religion, charity or any other object.
The stand of the assessee before the lower authorities that it was inadvertent mistake and there was no mala fide in availing the ineligible excess credit. On perusal of the Show-Cause Notice, we find that the Show Cause Notice only alleges the violation of provisions of Rule 14 of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 read with section 11AB of Finance Act, 1994 (sic). The said Show-Cause Notice does not allege any mala fide on the appellant for availment of excess credit. In our view, having reversed the ineligibly availed the Cenvat credit on being pointed out by the Audit party, the appellant has shown their bona fide on admitting the error. In view of this, we are of the view that the impugned order which upholds the imposition of penalty on the appellant is liable to be set aside and we do so.
In this case, the factory is located in a village and the village does not have adequate facilities for employees and therefore to get the proper employees, it becomes necessary for the assessee to provide transportation facility from the nearest city. Therefore, it cannot be said that the assessee is providing transportation facility to its employees as a welfare measure, but it is necessity to ensure that the manufacture takes place properly. Therefore, in the case before me, it can be said that the service has a relation to the business of manufacture and has a nexus.
Tribunal in the case of Navratna S.G. Highway Property Pvt. Ltd.in Order No. A/47/WZB/ AHD/2012, dt. 17-1-2012, has considered the same issue and has come to the conclusion that the credit of Service Tax paid on the services used during construction of immovable property which is rented subsequently, is admissible for payment of Service Tax.
It is also undisputed that the demand of the service tax is raised on the commission received by them as a licensed agent from the said M/s. IFFCO-TOKIO General Insurance Company Ltd. I find that the defence put up by the respondent before the: lower authorities is correct inasmuch as the provisions of rule 2(1)(d)(ii) of the Service Tax Rules, 1994 clearly casts responsibility on the: insurance company to discharge the service tax liability on the commission paid by them to their licensed agent. In the current case, that defence is enough for the respondent herein to state that the amount received by them from M/s. IFFCO-TOKIO General Insurance Company Ltd. has already been taxed by the government in the hands of the insurance company. I find that the first appellate authority was correct in allowing the appeal filed by the respondent.
Letter issued by the Superintendent is not an appealable order issued by a competent authority. It is also recorded that since a show cause notice on the same issue has already been issued to the appellant herein, the outcome of such adjudication proceedings is an appealable order before higher judicial fora. Accordingly, I find that the first appellate authority was correct in rejecting the appeal filed by the assessee.
The question that is to be examined is whether it can be said that appellant has failed to disclose any material facts or tried to mislead the Chief Commissioner. I have already reproduced the contradictions observed by the Chief Commissioner. Before the compounding of offence takes place, the penalty imposed is liable to be paid and the basic principle while filing application for compounding of offence is that the offence is admitted.
