In case of an accident within the factory, the compensation has to be paid by the company in accordance with the law and this is obligatory. To fulfil this legal obligation, the assessee has taken insurance. Therefore, it can be said that in this case the insurance premium is definitely relatable to business activity and is to fulfil one of the legal obligations of providing compensation to worker in case of injury in the factory. Under these circumstances, it was held that Cenvat credit of service tax paid on insurance taken to pay workmen’s compensation to the insurance company is admissible. Accordingly, appeal filed by the revenue is rejected.
Revenue in their memo of appeal have sought to distinguish the Hon’ble Bombay High Court judgment in the case Indian Ship Owners Association vs. UOI, on the ground that in that decision the services were received outside the India, whereas in the present case, the services were received inside the India from the person having his office in India. We do not find any merit in the above distinction being made by the Revenue. Section 66-A having been inserted in the Finance Act with effect from 18.4.2006 clearly laying down that recipient of services in India from outside India shall be liable to pay tax, cannot be made applicable retrospectively. We find no merits in the Revenue’s contention. Accordingly, the appeal is rejected. Stay petition also get disposed off.
M/s. Tradex Polymers Pvt. Ltd. is a registered service provider and is a Del credere consignment agent and during the course of advertising and publicizing the product the assessee enlisted the services of a mandap keeper which is an input service. This confirms to the definition of input service as defined under Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. I find the ratio of the decision in the case of M/s. Coca Cola India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CCE Pune-3 reported in 2009 (15) STR 657 (Banglore)
The dispute in the present appeal relates to the availment of service tax paid on the insurance service availed by the appellant to cover the damage or loss to the goods exported by the appellant, in as much as the said policy is for covering the goods in the foreign countries except India, lower authorities have held that the same cannot be considered as input services.
Demands for service tax with interest as applicable has been confirmed against the appellants and equal amount of penalty has also been imposed under Section 78 of Finance Act, 1994. The appellant one non profit organisations registered under Bombay Public Trust Act and is engaged in providing service of health club/sports activities to its members. Though separate orders have been passed, issue involved is same. Hence a common order is passed.
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.
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
It is settled law that the dutiability of the final products or inputs, the benefit of cenvat credit in respect of inputs and input services is made available, provided the assessee has necessary documentary evidence and necessary evidence to show utilisation of such input services and in this case, there is no finding that input services were not utilised in providing output services, for which service tax has been paid.
9. This Court in the Tax Appeal No.1367 of 2009 has taken the view that on a conjoint reading of sections 76 and 80 of the Act, it is not possible to envisage a discretion as being vested in the authority to levy a penalty below the minimum prescribed limit. If the authority imposing the penalty is not entitled to levy below the minimum prescrib
Since the inception of Cenvat Credit Rules, there has been a debate on the application of Cenvat Credit Rules viz a viz trading activity. The Cenvat Credit Rules do not have any provision to govern a situation where common ‘inputs’/‘input services’ are used by an assessee engaged in providing output service/ manufacturing dutiable goods and, at the same time, also undertaking ‘trading activity’.
