This as a fit care where the Bench may recommend to Tamilnadu Bar Council to take appropriate action against him. But, by keeping a lenient view in mind, we adjourn the case at the cost of Rs. 1,000/-(Rupees on thousand only) which will deposited by the counsel toward Prime Minister’s Relief Fund within three days from today. On the next date of hearing, proof of deposit shall be submitted.
Appellant is the centrally registered taxpayer and the error committed could not be detected immediately and it took almost a month to recognise the excess payment made in the month of May, 2011 and hence it was adjusted against the tax liabilities for the month of July, 2011
It was held that when the revenue proceeded to include the value of SEZ exports in computing the total turnover, the same should also have been included in computing export turnover and accordingly the value of export turnover should be equal to the total turnover and the value of SEZ exports should be included in the export turnover (numerator).
The Appellant is registered as Multi Product Special Economic Zone (MPSEZ) as a developer of AMRL Hi-Tech City. The Appellant claimed the refund of credit paid on various input services under Rule 5 of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 (“CC Rules”) read with Notification No. 12/2013-ST dated July 01, 2013.
Basic question which came up for consideration was eligibility of CENVAT Credit of Service Tax paid on outward transportation of goods upto place of removal. In the instant case, the appellant was denied CENVAT Credit of service tax paid on outward transportation service by the revenue on the premise that such transportation charges are post clearance expenses and therefore cannot be considered as ‘Input Service’.
It was held that the activity of procuring orders for the principal and also exploring potential customers and channelized the purchase orders should be classified under Business Auxiliary Service in accordance with rules of classification of the service.
iT was held that the export turnover portion in the formula prescribed under Rule 5 of CCR includes the value of exports made from SEZ. The Appellants are rendering software services and the services are exported and also to the domestic clients.
It was held that Currency Conversion Charges (mark up) in respect of credit/debit card transactions are not liable to service tax as the card transaction happened outside India.
Learned counsel explains that the Domestic Tariff Area (DTA) unit having paid the service tax on reverse charge mechanism on behalf of SEZ unit of the company, the portion of such tax attributable to the SEZ is denied by the adjudicating authority to avail CENVAT credit thereof.
The taxable services availed by the appellant were to occasion the exports. There appears nexus between export and the service so availed which cannot be ruled out by the authorities below. Once that is present, denial of the refund of the accumulated CENVAT credit to the exporter is unreasonable.
