On a perusal of the definition of ‘Business Auxiliary Service’ as it stood during the material period, we are of the prima facie view that the appellant was functioning as a commission agent for AAI by collecting PSF for AAI and remitting the collections to them. It is not in dispute that the collection charges at the rate of 2.5% on PSF
The appellant/assessee herein filed a refund application with the authorities on the ground that the service tax paid by them should not have been paid. The adjudicating authority after following the Principles of natural justice, rejected the refund claim on various grounds, including the ground of unjust enrichment.
Issue before us involved in the current case is regarding the contract of supply, erection, installation and commissioning of fire, hydraulic systems and the issue before us in the case of the appellants own case in Final Order dt. 22/7/2010 was for supply, erection, installation and commissioning of power systems and distribution systems.
The short question to be considered in this appeal filed by the department is whether the view taken by the lower appellate authority that the respondent is eligible for CENVAT credit on outdoor catering service used for serving food to their employees during the period of dispute (July to December 2007) is correct or not. After hearing both sides, the learned Deputy Commissioner (AR) representing the appellant submits that the benefit is not admissible to the respondent unless they prove that no part of the cost of providing the service was recovered from their employees.
Short question which has to be considered in this case is whether the respondent is entitled to claim CENVAT credit of service tax paid by themselves on GTA service which was used for transportation of their final product from factory to the port for export. The respondent recovered FOB value from the foreign buyer, implying that the ownership of the goods vested in the respondent upto the place and time of loading of the goods into the ship. If the appellant had duty liability, they would have paid it on an assessable value including the freight. On these facts, it can be held that the place of removal of the goods was the port of export. The definition of ‘input service’ under rule 2(l) of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 will squarely cover the above service which was used by the respondent for transportation of the goods from the factory to the place of removal.
The issue involved in the matter is whether the trade discount amounts received by the appellant to be treated as commission and taxable under the Business Auxiliary Service or not. The liability in that regard is essentially to be decided on the basis of the provisions of law comprised under the service tax statute. Besides the provisions of the said rules which are brought to our notice rather than disclosing principal to principal relationship between the publisher of the newspaper and the appellants, overall reading of the said rules disclose certain disciplinary control by the Newspaper Society over the appellants as far as it relates to advertising services are concerned which would, prima-facie, disclose the trade discount to be in the nature of commission to the agents.
Explanation to Rule 6(1) of the Service Tax Rules provide that for removal of doubt, it is clarified that in case the value of taxable service is received before providing of the said service, then the service tax is required to be paid on the value of the service, then the service tax is required to be paid on the value of the service attributable for the relevant month or quarter as the case may be. Ld. Chartered Accountant for the appellants has also drawn our attention to the fact that the said explanation ceased to be on the statute book from 12 th September, 2007.
The assessee did not file ST-3 returns declaring the correct taxable value as prescribed. We find that the Joint Commissioner had held that the assessee was not liable to pay service tax on demurrage and handling charges with respect to export cargo/baggage in appellants’ own case. The Commissioner has refrained from confirming the demand for extended period. The circumstances clearly show that the appellant had not attempted to evade service tax due. Moreover, the liabilities confirmed followed interpretation of provisions which could also accommodate the view held by the appellants.
I, however, find that prior to 10/09/2004 collection of cheques / bills etc. was not part of business auxiliary service and scope of customer care service cannot be stretched to cover such collection prior to this date under sub-clause (iii) of definition. Customer care service relates to post sale services rendered to the users / consumers by the service provider who provide this care on behalf of the client. No element of such customer care is present in the activity of collection of bills etc. Further, if collection of chequ
We find that as per the appellant, major amount of demand working out to Rs.12.07 crores pertains to capital goods credit utilised. We note that the Commissioner wrongly found that the restriction contained in Rule 6(3) of CCR as regards the use of cenvat credit above 20% of the tax paid applied to credit of capital goods also. In the circumstances, we set aside the impugned order and remand the entire case to the Commissioner for a fresh decision on all issues after hearing the assessee. The appeal is allowed by way of remand. Stay petition is also disposed of.
