imply On reading of Rule 10(1) of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004, it is clear that a manufacturer of final product shall be entitled to transfer of the unutilized cenvat credit to the transferred factory provided he shifts his factory at another site and also fulfills the requirement of Rule 10(3) of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004.
The limitation period prescribed under section 11B for filing the refund claim is one year from the relevant date. The term relevant date in the case where the duty becomes refundable as the consequences of judgment, decree, order or direction of the Appellate authority, appellate Tribunal or any Court has been defined in Explanation (B)(ec) of section 11B as the date of such judgment, decree or direction.
Liaison work is not in the nature of any consultancy or advice. But only one of the temporary functions that was required for the functioning of the company. If a person does the activity of collecting of debts of a company that person cannot be considered to be doing management consultancy service though debt collection is a responsibility of the management. Based on such reasoning liaison work cannot be considered as “Management or Business Consultancy” and cannot be taxed under section 65(105)(r) of Finance Act 1994.
No GTA services if custodial rights not transferred to transporter : The terms of the contract showed that this was a case where the operator was responsible only for the vehicle and there were no custodial rights or responsibilities in matter of goods carried. Since the assessee was responsible for the goods transported, consignment note, which is a document of title to the goods, was not issued.
The ratio based on areas developed in SEZ and outside SEZ is not a good criterion for the purpose in question for various reasons. In the first place, Revenue will not be able to do verification of the measurements considering the activity involved vis-a-vis amount of refund to be granted. Further the quality of development and facilities provided inside SEZ and outside SEZ are likely to be very different.
The appellant is a manufacturer of acrylic fibre, acrylic top etc. and were availing the facility of Cenvat credit of duty paid on inputs, capital goods and Service Tax paid on inputs services used in or in relation to manufacture of final products. The appellants are availing the services of foreign agents and were paying commission on said agents located outside India.
It appears that the deficiency is that the bills raised by the CHA do not show the shipping bill numbers and date and the full requirements of the above conditions are not met. The reason given in the impugned order is that copies of shipping bills are not produced. No such condition is prescribed against S. No. 11.
In the present case, though the cheque was received on 4.1.2007, the same was actually deposited in the bank on 5.2.2007 and must have been encashed on a date after that. As such, it is to be considered as if the consideration for the services was received by the appellant in the month of February itself, thus requiring them to deposit the tax with the department in March, 2007.
The disputed amount has not been realized as service tax from the person to whom service is provided. It is also to be noted that appellant had not filed a service tax return and the amount deposited in that tax account of the Government becomes payment towards service tax only when return is filed. Therefore, in this case, it is a strictly not a refund of service tax paid.
Hon’ble Supreme Court and the Hon’ble Supreme Court has dismissed the appeal filed as reported at 2012 (25) J514 (SC). So we consider that this matter is no longer res integra and service tax can be demanded under section 65(105)(zzzh) only if the building concerned has more than 12 residential units in the building and such levy will not apply in cases where in one compound has many buildings, each having not more than 12 residential units. Therefore, we set aside the impugned order and allow the appeal.
