In the instant case, the refund claim was filed on 2/1/2009. The learned Consultant’s contention is that the marginal delay of 3 days should be condoned. Since there is a delay of three days, it is not within the power of the authorities to condone the delay in filing the refund claim, that too a time limit which is envisaged in the Notification.
Service Tax – Condonation of delay in filing appeal – Submission of the learned Chartered Accountant that the appellant company had different division and departments situated in the same building at Bangalore and the receipt of the said order in one department was not communicated to the legal department to prefer an appeal, is an argument without merits. It is for the appellant company to arrange his business in a manner that he takes action exercising his legal right of appeal with due diligence.
It is submitted that destination charges or ground handling charges were collected by MSIL for storage and warehousing service in relation to the clearance of goods. The service formed an integral part of service relating to clearance of goods and the charges were towards storage and warehousing.
We find that in an identical issue this bench had taken a view in the case of Chakita Ranjini Udyam (supra) that the value of the rubber, cushion, gum and solution consumed in the retreading/ reconditioning of tyres need not be included in the value for the discharge of Service Tax and benefit of Notification No.12/2003 is available.
SAP India Pvt. Ltd., the Appellants, entered into end-user license agreements with clients for maintenance of information technology software already installed in the computer systems and made operational. Show cause notice (SCN) was issued alleging
SAP India Pvt. Ltd. (Appellant) is engaged in the provision of consultancy, licensing and maintenance or ERP software. The Commissioner, Service Tax had confirmed service tax demand of INR 20 crores on the Appellant under maintenance and repair’ service during the period July 2004 and January 2006. In addition to the service tax demand, the Commissioner had also confirmed interest and penalties against the Appellant.
M/s Coromandel Paints Ltd („the appellant?) are manufacturers of paints & varnishes, thinners falling under chapter 32 and 38 of the schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 („the Central Excise Tariff?). The appellant had entered into an agreement with M/s. Sigmakalon India Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai (SIPL) for manufacture and supply of paints. The paints manufactured by the appellant for SIPL were meant for industrial and institutional use, hence, in accordance with the provision of Standards of Weights and Measures Act, 1976, no MRP was required to be printed on such packages. Accordingly, the valuation of the same is not required to be done under Section 4A of the Central Excise Act, 1944 („the Central Excise Act?). Therefore, the appellant sold the said goods to SIPL by paying Central Excise duty on the transaction value i.e. on the landing cost of the raw materials and the production overheads. Further, the invoice amounts were adjusted against the advances paid by SIPL. The Department demanded duty from the appellant on the ground, that the goods were being manufactured by the appellant on job work basis and the same were required to be assessed in terms of Rule 10A of the Central Excise (Determination of price of excisable goods) Rules, 2000 („the Valuation Rules?). The demand was upheld by the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals). Being aggrieved by the order of the Commissioner (Appeals), the appellant preferred an appeal to the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (“CESTAT?).
‘Rent-a-cab’ services utilized by the appellants for transportation of food articles from centralized canteen to appellant’s current factory premises needs to be gone into in detail, which can be done only at the time of final disposal of the appeal. On a specific query from the bench, the authorized representative submits that the amount involved is approximately Rs.8,000/-.
The Adjudicating Authority has proceeded on the basis of provisions of Rule 7 and Board’s circular which according to him, the credit distributor should have distributed the service tax credit to all units. We find strong force in the contentions raised by the ld. Counsel that the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Ecof Industries (P.) Ltd. (supra) where the provisions of Rule 7 has been analysed in depth and has been settled that the ISD can distribute the credit even to only one unit.
On a careful consideration of the submissions, we find that the issue involved in this case is the very same which was remanded by this Bench vide Final Order No 612/2009 dated 6.5.2009 . We find that vide Stay Order No 1093/2006 dated 06.10.2006 , this Bench had directed the appellant to pre-deposit Rs 14,00,000/- which was duly complied with. Since this amount is still lying with the department, we consider this amount as enough deposit to hear and dispose off the appeal. Application for waiver of the pre-deposit of the balance amount is allowed and recovery thereof stayed till the disposal of the appeal.
