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’.
Orion Appliances Ltd (hereinafter referred to as the „appellant?) was engaged in providing maintenance and repair and commissioning and installation services. The appellant was also engaged in trading activities. The appellant availed CENVAT credit of service tax paid on various input services including advertising, security, courier, telephone and banking services which were used in provision of taxable output services as well as for trading activities.
The CESTAT (Ahmedabad Bench) in case of Orion Appliances Ltd. v. CST, Ahmedabad. [Arising out of Appeal No. ST/120/09 and order dated 07-05-2010J has observed that Rule 6(2) and Rule 6(3) of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 are not attracted in case where an assessee is providing ‘taxable output services’ and also undertaking ‘trading activity’.
BACHA MOTORS (P) LTD Vs CST, AHMEDABAD (CESTAT Ahemdabad)- It was also submitted that in several decisions of the Tribunal, reliance was placed on the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of M/s MIL India Ltd. 2007 (210) ELT 188 (S.C.) = (2007-TIOL-30-SC-CX) to support the view that the Commissioner has no power to remand. After considering all these decisions, I find that in the case of M/s MIL India, the main issue before Hon’ble Supreme Court was entirely different and hence it was only observation during the course of discussion of the issue wherein Hon’ble Supreme Court mentioned about the amendment of the Section.
The question is whether the terms of the contract as given above is for supply of labourers or is for doing specific item of work. If it is for performance of specified items of work, the same would not be covered by the definition of service since the service covers manpower recruitment or supply.
The documents were not in the name of the assessee’s factory situated at Silvassa but the same were issued in the name of the head office of the assessee situated at Mumbai. However, I find that there is otherwise no dispute about the input services received by the assessee. The substantive benefit cannot be denied on the procedural grounds.
Rule-2(l) of Cenvat Credit Rules does not require that service has to be rendered at the factory of the manufacturer for the purpose of eligibility for service tax credit. Therefore the stand of the revenue that since the service was provided at the buyer’s premises credit is not admissible cannot be accepted. What has to be examined is whether the service provided is in or in relation to manufacture.
Whether the contracts of IOCL and BPCL with L&T can be held to be divisible and therefore service tax can be levied on the services part as held by Member (Technical) or whether the contracts between the appellants and IOCL & BPCL to be held as not divisable and therefore not liable to service tax as held by Member (Judicial)? Whether the contract between GEB and the appellants
We also find that the Board vide its Service Tax instructions F.No.B..43/5/97-TRU, dated 2.7.97 held in para 3.5 that the expenses incurred on account of reimbursable expenses shall not form part of the value of the taxable services. To the same effect is another instruction being Service Tax F.No.B11/98-TRU, dated 7.10.98.
