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
It is not known as to why the Assistant Commissioner chose not to give a personal hearing which is a clear violation of Principles of Natural Justice. The original authority has shown total disregard for the principles of natural justice in not granting personal hearing before passing the adjudication order. There is no indication that the respondent was delaying the adjudication proceedings as the reply has been promptly submitted by the respondents as has been duly noted by the original authority. He has held that the respondents have not produced any evidence to prove that the charge raised by them on the main service provider has been included on the tenable value of the main service provider
The respondents is a manufacturer of satellite components and aircraft components classifiable under Chapter sub-heading 88033000 and they are paying excise duty on these goods. They are also providing service of renting of immovable property coming under Section 65(105) (zzzz) of Finance Act, 1994. The respondents have availed credit of excise duty paid on capital goods and inputs and service tax paid on input service.
Payment made by the first respondent/assessee was not voluntary and was forced to make the said payment. In such circumstances, the said payment can only be construed as one made under protest. When once the said conclusion based on the above facts are inevitable, then the second proviso to sub section 1 of Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, automatically comes into play.
