We find that the abatement of 75% from the gross freight value under Notification No. 32/2004-ST dated 03.12.2004 as amended is not available in the absence of such declaration/consignment note containing transaction particulars. The Commissioner has therefore rightly confirmed the demand in respect of 14 transporters. The plea of limitation also cannot be considered by the Tribunal as earlier remand order of the Tribunal does not contain any direction for reconsideration of the issue of time bar. We, therefore, uphold the impugned orders and reject the appeals.
Assessees have made out a strong prima facie case on the ground that, although they were charging management fees from the bank who lend/advance money to the SHGs, they were a non-profit making organization as no profit or income or profit was paid or transferred to their members directly or indirectly by way of dividend or bonus. This view finds support from the decision of the Tribunal in M/s. Institute of Banking Personnel Selection Vs CST, Mumbai [2007 (8) STR 529].
CCE, Trichy Vs. SBI, Kumbakonam (CESTAT Chennani) – The fourth proviso to the said Section 78 provides that the reduced penalty of 25% is available if the same is paid within 30 days of the Commissioner (Appeals) but this proviso applies in the case where the Commissioner (Appeals) enhances the penalty and not where he reduces the penalty. In this case, the Commissioner (Appeals) has reduced the penalty and hence the respondents cannot take advantage to the provision under the fourth proviso to Section 78.
We have heard both sides. The provision of security at the Calcutta guest house has no nexus or relation with the business of manufacture of the assessees, who are manufacturers of ‘Titanium-di-oxide’, ‘Ferrous Sulphate’ etc., in Tuticorin. Therefore, the security service for the guest house cannot be considered as an input service so as to make credit of tax paid on such services admissible to the assesses. I, therefore, uphold the impugned order and reject the appeal.
I note that in the case of Commissioner of Central Excise, Nagpur Vs Ultra Cement Ltd. = ( 2010-TIOL-745-HC-MUM-ST ) , the Nagpur Bench of Hon’ble Bombay High Court has held that credit of service tax would be allowed except where the cost of food has been recovered from the employee/worker. Although, ld. counsel submits that a token amount of Re.1/- has been collected from the employees/workers of the assessee’s company, since show cause notice does not advert to this factual position nor do the orders of the authorities below consider this aspect, the impugned order is set aside and the case remitted to the adjudicating authority for fresh decision in the light of the Hon’ble High Court judgment cited supra.
The amalgamation order issued by the Ministry of Petroleum is undisputedly dated 30.04.07. However, the said order specified 01.04.04 as the effective date of merger. Apparently, the process of amalgamation took considerable time and the same has been effected only by order dated 30.04.07. Such retrospective approval does pose certain practical difficulties. The effect of the order is that from 01.04.04, IBP ceased to exist as a separate company. That being the case, the transaction between IBP and IOCL during the interim period could not be treated as between a service provider and service recipient. As the order of the Ministry of Petroleum clearly mentioned 01.04.04 as the effective date of amalgamation, notwithstanding the date of approval given by the Registrar of Companies being 02.05.07, the specific date indicating the date of amalgamation as 01.04.04 should be accepted.
The original authority rejected the claim of refund of service tax paid on the export services claimed by the appellants, in terms of Notification No. 41/07-ST dated 06.10.07, on the ground that part of the claim was not substantiated with relevant documents and part of the claim has been filed after the period six months prescribed for claiming the refund in terms of the said Notification
The instruction of the Board dated 31.10.07, sought to be relied upon by the department, is in the context of concluding proceedings on payment of service tax, interest and 25% of the amount as penalty on issue of show cause notice. In the present case, adjudication has been done by the original authority and penalties have been imposed under various sections including Section 78. Proviso to Section 78 clearly provides for payment of concessional penalty if the duty and interest determined by the authorities are paid within 30 days
. The respondent functions as loan processor between ICICI bank, Home Finance Co. Ltd. and the borrowers. The bank collects processing fee from the borrowers. Out of the amount so collected as processing fee, some portion is paid to the respondent as commission for their services. The department was of the view that the respondents rendered “Business Auxiliary Services” to the bank and, therefore, service tax was payable on the commission fee received by them from the bank. On being pointed out by the department, th
We find that review of an Order-in-Appeal involves application of mind and that the mind of the Committee of Commissioner was exercised so as to accept the impugned Order-in-appeal, and hence the question of once again reviewing the Order-in-Appeal does not arise. Further, the clarification is contrary to the decision of the apex Court in the case of Union of India Vs. Indian National Shipowners Association – 2010 (17) STR J57 (SC) = ( 2009-IST-07-SC-ST) , upholding the decision of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court w
