The Bangalore bench of the CESTAT, last week ruled that limitation cannot be invoked for denying refund of service tax paid by assessee by mistake under the provisions of Finance Act, 1994.
Appellant is eligible for rebate of Central Excise duty paid on inputs used in the manufacture of export goods, even in case where customs duty component is claimed as drawback.
Issue of imposition of redemption fine and penalty has been settled and now various Benches of the Tribunal have consistently held that the redemption fine of 10% of the value of the goods and penalty of 5% of the value of the goods is sufficient punishment to the importer. Therefore, following the ratios of various […]
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).
