Assessee is a 100% EOU and the disputed service tax related to import of services from foreign based commission agent. The assessee was required to pay the tax as a deemed service provider in terms of Section 66A of the Finance Act. Since the services were clearly input services for the appellant, the assessee was eligible for credit of service tax if the same had been paid by them.
The relevant show-cause notices were issued far beyond the normal period of limitation prescribed under Section 11A(i) of the Central Excise Act, without invoking the extended period of limitation. The operative part of one of these show-cause notices has been reproduced hereinbefore. The other show-cause notice is no different.
It is the oft-repeated submission of the counsel that the COD applications are liable to be allowed on the sole ground of pendency of their writ petition before the Hon’ble High Court. No judicial authority has been cited before us in support of the plea. We are of the view that the pendency of the writ petition filed by the appellants who were conscious of the statutory remedy cannot per se constitute a valid ground for condonation of the deliberate delay of over seven years. The appellants have not stated any other valid reason.
Having found a good case for the appellant on the question whether the order-in-original was issued and dispatched in accordance with the relevant provision of law, we have to remand this case to the learned Commissioner (Appeals) with a request to consider the assessee’s appeal filed against the order-in-original to have been filed within time and then to proceed to dispose it of on merits in accordance with law and the principles of natural justice. Accordingly, we set aside the impugned order and allow this appeal by way of remand for the aforesaid purpose. The stay application also stands disposed of.
Whatever was submitted to the department was rebate claim under Notification No.21/2004 after the refund claim was rejected. The rebate claim has been correctly rejected on the ground that the procedure as set out under Notification No.21/2004 has not been followed.
The modus operandi of the appellants, which we have briefly stated herein before, is crystal clear. They were not purchasing and selling immovable properties. They were only holding ‘General Power of Attorney’ of the property owners and, in that capacity, selling the property to M/s Sahara India .
Learned CA submits that the maintenance of DG sets is essentially and integrally connected to rendering the business and no export of service can take place if there is no uninterrupted power supply and, therefore, the said services should be treated as ‘input services’. We are prima facie, in agreement with views expressed by learned CA that the impugned services could be treated as ‘input services’ in respect of services rendered by the appellant.
Activities of the appellant may not deserve to be considered as ‘supply of manpower’ but as rendering of ‘information technology software service’ and in the light of the stay granted in the case of ASM Technologies Ltd. (supra), the appellants are eligible for waiver of pre-deposit. As regards, the denial of CENVAT credit,
The services/activities in question are pest control, annual maintenance contract (AMC) for ST plant for sewage disposal, AMC for air conditioners for instrumentation room, canteen facility and AMC for computers. The learned counsel for the appellant relies on the following decisions in support of their claim of CENVAT credit on the aforesaid services:
The issue whether the time-limit prescribed under Section 11B in respect of claim for refund of CENVAT credit under Rule 5 is applicable has been considered by the Tribunal in the case of Swagat Synthetics Ltd. v. CCE 2007 (220) ELT 949 (Trib. – Ahd.) and it was held that credit lying in RG23A account accumulated arising out of export is akin to credit in the PLA and the time-limit shall not apply.
