The impugned order confirms the demand against the appellant under the category Business Auxiliary Services without specifying which specific sub-clause covered the activities rendered by UTL. We find that no tax liability can be confirmed against a person without putting him/it on notice as to its liability. It is essential that the liability is indicated in the notice with reference to the specific statutory provision. In the instant case, the impugned proceedings did not allege at the show cause notice stage or find at the adjudication stage the specific provision under which the services rendered by UTL are classifiable.
On a careful consideration of the case records and the submission made by both sides, we find that the appellants have not made out a prima facie case for complete waiver of the dues adjudged against them. The impugned order sustained demand of service tax of Rs 7,67,673/, applicable interest, penalty @ 200/- per day or @ 2% of the tax confirmed per month for the period the tax was in arrears, penalty of Rs 5000/- under Section 77 of the Act and penalty of Rs 12,00,000/- under Section 78 of the Act. We find that a pre-deposit of Rs 1,00,000/- (rupees one lakh only) will be appropriate to hear and dispose the appeal. Hence we direct the appellants to pre-deposit Rs 1,00,000/- within four weeks from to day and report compliance on 20 th September 2010. Subject to such compliance, we order waiver of balance dues pending decision in the appeal.
Service Tax – Service tax paid on input services like house keeping/cleaning service, tours & travels, outdoor catering service, clearing & forwarding agent service and custom house agent service eligible as CENVAT credit in view of consistent decisions of CESTAT – Prima facie case for full waiver of pre-deposit
M/s Flextronics Technologies (India) Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise (CESTAT Bangalore)- On a conjoint reading of Section 11AB of the Act and that of Rules 3 and 4 of the Credit Rules, we hold that interest cannot be claimed from the date of wrong availment of CENVAT credit. The interest shall be payable from the date CENVAT credit is wrongly utilized.
Recently in the case of Kbace Tech Pvt. Ltd. v. CCE/CST CESTAT ruled that the refund or CENVAT credit on input services is allowed only if the services are consumed in the output service. It is held that the Board’s Circular No. 120/01/2010-ST, dated 19-1-10 does not have the effect of amending the statute and cannot be seen as authorizing sanction of refund if the credit of service tax does not relate to services consumed for providing the output service.
In the case of supply of manpower individuals are contractually employed by the manpower recruitment or supply agency. The agency agrees for use for the services of an individual, employed by him to another person for a consideration.
We have considered the submissions made at length by both sides and perused the records. The issue for determination in this case is whether the reimbursable expenditure incurred by the appellant is chargeable to service tax or not. On perusal of the returns it appears that they had indicated this amount against the column marked as “amount billed for exempted services other than export”. It is also undisputed that the appellant has been taking this stand before the lower authorities that the amounts are reimbursable expenses. It was the claim of the appellant that they had received
Once the taxable service is exported and various input services have been utilized for providing the output service :i.e. appellants could be entitled for the rebate, which is equal to the service tax paid on the input services. Going by the definition of the input service under Rule 2(1) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 the service utilized by the appellants for providing output service can indeed be considered as input services.
We are of the considered opinion that the activity relating to one of the categories could not be subjected to service tax under other category. In other words, the activities relating to Freight forwarding cannot be thought under CHA. The appellants had clearly explained the nature of the charges collected such as Charge Collect fees, Break bulk fees, Profit share from margin Unallocated income, Currency adjustment factor, Air/sea Freight rebate, Commission/ Brokerage, Air freight incentive, Expenses reimbursement billing, etc.
T.K. Jayaraman, Technical Member. – This appeal has been filed against the Adjudication Order No. 15/2007 (VR), dated 17-5-2007 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise & Customs, Visakhapatnam-II Commissionerate. 2. Shri MSV Prasad, the learned Advocate, appeared on behalf of the appellants and Ms. Sudha Koka, the learned SDR for the revenue.
