Service provider, namely, M/s.Aban Offshore Ltd., has paid the impugned tax amount under the category of Mining Service without disputing the same. As pointed out by the learned JCDR, it is settled law that unless the assessment has been disputed, no refund can be sanctioned vide the Hon’ble Supreme Court’s decision in the cases of Flock (India) (P.) Ltd. (supra) and Priya Blue Industries Ltd. (supra).
Respondents are not liable to pay any service tax under reverse charge mechanism on the services availed by them from their parent company as they have not paid any remuneration for the training charges. If at all any charges were paid for training outside India is not chargeable to service tax as per provisions of Taxation of Services (Provided from outside India and received in India) Rules, 2006.
Insofar as requirement of registration with the department as a condition precedent for claiming Cenvat credit is concerned, learned counsel appearing for both parties were unable to point out any provision in the Cenvat Credit Rules which impose such restriction. In the absence of a statutory provision which prescribed that registration is mandatory and that if such a registration is not made the assessee is not entitled to the benefit of refund,
This argument of the ld. advocate is prima facie untenable as the appellants are recovering charges incurred for maintenance of the common areas from the individual shop owners. Ld. advocate himself states that the maintenance is done through service contractors who are providing the maintenance service and are also paying service tax.
No where in the Central Excise Act as well as in the Cenvat Credit Rules not prescribed any period in which credit has to be taken. Although it is mentioned in the Cenvat Credit Rules that assessee can take the credit immediately, but there is no prescribed time limit neither in the Cenvat Credit Rules nor in the Central Excise Act
Consideration charged for the service provided shall include income tax deducted at source as per terms of contract and is in accord with Section 66A read with Rule 7(1) of the Service Tax (Determination of Value) Rules 2006 for the reason that net price of contract agreed to be paid to foreign consultant was to include income deducted at source thereon to be price also. Thus the tax demand on the assessable value comprising the consideration inclusive of income tax deducted at source relating to the period (9.4.2006 to September 2007) which was agreed to be price of the contract sustains.
The adjudicating Commissioner has also taken objection to the fact that the refunds have been made by way of credit and not by issue of cheques. In this respect, we note that a large number of transactions are involved and the industry practice is to make refunds by way of book adjustment allowing credit
It is an admitted fact on record that the appellant received the Order-in-Original on 30th December, 2009 and filed appeal before learned Commissioner (Appeals) on 2.1.2012. So also admittedly, there was a delay of more than two years in seeking appeal remedy before the learned first appellate authority.
It is an admitted fact that the appellants are liable to pay service tax under Works Contract services with effect from 1-6-2007 and the appellants did not get themselves registered with the service tax department from 1-6-2007. The ground taken by the appellants is that they were not aware of the fact that they are liable to pay service tax under works’ contract with effect from 1-6-2007 is not sustainable, as ignorance of law is not an excuse.
The assessee contested that the impugned activity was a joint business involving no service from one party to other. Therefore in view of CBEC circular 108/2/009 dated 29-1-2009 no service tax arises in such context. The main contention was there that was a joint venture between the landowners and the assessee where profit of the joint venture was shared by both the parties. The landowner made available his land and the assessee did construction activity and constructed flats were divided in a ratio agreed at the time of execution of Joint Development Agreement. It could not be considered that the assessee was providing any service to the landowners. The assessee was paying back the consideration for his share of the land which he bought through the Development Agreement by compensating in the form of flats constructed and handed over to the landowners.
