It was held that the Tribunal’s decisions are binding on the lower authorities and cannot be ignored on the sole ground that the Revenue may prefer to file appeal against the same before the higher authorities until and unless the same is set aside by a higher forum.
In the case of M/s. TNT (INDIA) PVT LTD Versus Commissioner of Central Excise and Service Tax BANGALORE-III, it was held that where the credit taken was based on the documents where service tax on the input services was paid in excess mainly on account of wrong calculation by the appellant.
In my considered opinion, the appellant fell within the ambit of “outdoor caterer” as defined at all times inasmuch as he was admittedly catering food to Dr. Reddy’s Laboratories Ltd. at a place owned by the latter and it is not the case of the appellant that he was the owner of those premises. In this view of the matter, it is held that the appellant was liable to pay service tax prior to 16.6.2005 also. For the period from 16.6.2005, there is no room for doubt inasmuch as the amended definition is explicit. Accordingly it has to be held that the appellant was liable to pay service tax under the head “outdoor catering service” on the catering charges collected from Dr. Reddy’s Laboratories Ltd. for the entire period.
The appellant being an IT related service provider, undisputedly, the recruitment of manpower was, obviously for rendering those services and what further details were required by the department are not forthcoming. Similarly, the ‘security agency services’ are used for securing their office premises. Therefore, there is no justification for interfering with the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) allowing refund of credit in respect of these services.
In this appeal filed by the assessee, the challenge is against a demand raised on the appellant in terms of Rule 6(3) of the CENVAT Credit Rules 2004 for the period from July to December 2008. During the said period, the appellant (a unit in the domestic tariff area) had cleared their products to SEZ developers/units. During the same period they had also cleared their products to the DTA on payment of duty. The department treated the clearances to SEZ developers/units as clearance of exempted goods and, having found no maintenance of separate accounts in terms of rule 6(1) of the CCR 2004, chose to demand 10% of the sale price (taxes excluded) of the goods cleared to SEZ developers (units) during the above period.
One important question survives for consideration and the same is whether the legal mistake committed by the Department can be corrected to ensure that the offender does not escape punishment under the Central Excise law. There is a clear distinction between a mistake of fact and a mistake of law. The former cannot be rectified at later stage but the latter is rectifiable subject, of course, to legal constraints. In the present case, the show-cause notice was issued to the appellant for the sole purpose of penalizing them for the offence alleged therein.
The appellants have undisputedly undertaken booking of tickets during the period 2004-05 for other service providers who are similarly placed as tour operators. They have received consideration from the said tour operators towards the services rendered. This is clearly towards ‘promotion or marketing of services provided by the client’ which is included under the definition of ‘Business Auxiliary Services’ in terms of section 65(105)(zzb).
The appellants shall be eligible for the credit of rent-a-cab service provided, they are able to satisfy that the rent-a-cab service has been utilized for transport of employees/officials or business related visitors to their factory/office. These submissions have not been specifically made before the authorities below, as rightly pointed by the learned Superintendent (AR). Under these circumstances, I deem it appropriate to set aside the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) and remand the matter to the original authority for fresh consideration after granting opportunity to the assessee to produce additional evidence and granting them reasonable opportunity of hearing. All the issues are kept open.
After considering the submissions, we note that the impugned demand of service tax and education cess is not under any determinate head of taxable service. No breakup of the gross value for different categories mentioned in the impugned order is forthcoming. Apparently, the appropriate taxable service was not identified either in the show-cause notice or in the impugned order. A demand of service tax without correct classification of the taxable service is alien to the scheme of service tax levy.
On a perusal of the definition of franchise given under Section 65(47) under the Finance Act, 1994, we note that it refers to an agreement by which the franchisee is granted representational right to provide service identified with the franchisor whether or not any ‘service mark’ is involved. Prima facie, in the absence of such an agreement, the appellant themselves would have provided the service to the people/State Government in respect of the bridge under the BOT agreement.
