Obtaining export incentives is directly relatable to manufacture. Manufacturer while manufacturing goods for export and for working out the cost takes into account the export incentives. Export incentives play a very big role in the manufacture and export of goods. This being the position, service tax incurred in respect of services for obtaining export incentives can be definitely related to manufacturing activity and therefore the decision of the learned Commissioner holding that respondent is eligible for the input service tax credit is to be sustained.
The assessee was required to pay 10% of value of the final exempted goods in terms of the provisions of rule 6(3)(b) of Cenvat Credit Rules. Explanation-1 attached to the said rule is to the effect that such amount shall be paid by the manufacturer by debiting the Cenvat credit or otherwise. As this amount payable at the time of clearances of the exempted final products is primarily intended to counter-effect the credit availed on the inputs used in the manufacture of such final exempted products;
It is quite clear that the claimant has to show that the burden of excise duty has not been passed on to any other person and not only to the buyers. In this case, the purchaser being the defence organisation of Government of India, the question of passing on the excise duty to any other person does not arise and ordnance depot not being a manufacturer of any goods,
SSI exemption Notification No. 6/2005-ST dated 01.3.2005 as amended vide Notification No. 8/2008-ST dated 01.3.2008, grants the benefit of exemption of service tax per year, provided that the assessee has not crossed the threshold limit of rupees ten lakhs in the preceding financial year.
In this case, there is no dispute that even though the bill is in the name of company C/o employee’s name, the payment for the service has been made by the company only. I also find that the submission of the appellant that employee’s name was put for internal purpose is also reasonable since the company has to know who is utilizing the telephone so that they can monitor the utilization and also ensure that phone is not misused.
There is a fallacy in above reasoning of Commissioner (Appeals). The same service for which the contractor has procured an order, does not stand actually provided by him but is passed on to sub-contractor, who provided the actual service, it cannot be said that the contractor is liable to pay duty on the same.
In this case the appellant have tried to ensure that the law is followed and is implemented properly. Therefore, as soon as the dispute arose in 2005-06, they made the payment under protest. Further, I also found from the Chartered Accountant’s certificate that the certificate clearly says that the incidence of the said service tax had not been passed on by them to any other person and it was not recovered from the clients.
After hearing the learned SDR, we find that in page Nos. 238 to 245 the appellant had produced various certificates before the adjudicating authority from the original contractor. These certificates indicate that the original contractor has discharged the service tax liability on the part of the work executed by appellant. If that be so, in our view the appellant need not be burdened with service tax liability.
As observed by the lower authorities, according to Clause 2(f), the claim has to be filed within 1 year from the date of export of goods. As already observed, this becomes a statutory requirement and a substantive requirement and therefore, the Tribunal, being a creature of law, cannot go beyond the provisions of law and statutes and give relief.
Mere publication of name of the company and name of the product along with details relating to price, packaging and dosage would not promote the sale or marketing of the product but the information would be of use only for the chemists/druggists. In fact that information would not be of use even to the chemist who was required to dispense medicines in the shop.
