It also appears that there is abuse of process of law by mere filing appeal and depriving Revenue to realise its dues availing benefit of interim order. This reason is enough to dismiss the appeals also. Accordingly, both the appeals are dismissed.
Vide section 97 of the Finance Act, 2012, such activity was granted retrospective exemption w.e.f. 16.06.2005 to 26.06.2009. Inasmuch as the period involved in the present matter is from 31.01.2006 up to 18.04.2006, we hold that the appellant is not liable to pay any service tax on the activities of repair and maintenance of roads.
If there is any defect in appeal, in terms of the procedure prescribed by rule 4.03 of Chapter 4 of Judicial Manual, that defect may be intimated to the appellant for curing the same without compulsion since curable defects do not take away right to appeal. Therefore, such valuable right should not be casually denied on flimsy ground of technicalities without scrutiny according to procedure prescribed by Judicial Manual.
CENVAT Credit cannot be denied merely on the ground that HO who raised invoice was not registered under central registration during material period It is to be held that final rejection of centralized registration vide letter dated 26-5-2006 cannot be held to be a justifiable reason for denial of the credit. Apart from the fact that during the said period, the application was pending in the office of Deputy Commissioner, without their being any decision taken by him on the same, 1 find that there is otherwise no dispute about the availability of the credit to the appellant. The substantial benefit, if otherwise available, cannot be denied on the technical and procedural grounds. As such, in the absence of any dispute that the appellant was otherwise entitled to the benefit of Cenvat credit of Service Tax paid on GTA services, so received by them, the denial of the same on the ground that the credit was availed on the basis of invoices raised by their head office is neither justifiable nor warranted.
Looking to the legislative intent it is not possible to say that the risk covered by insurance service received shall not enjoy Cenvat credit of service tax paid on such service. No doubt, the insurance service may be indirectly connected to the manufacturing or other activity but that may be in relation to manufacture or various other business activities enumerated in Rule 2(l) of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004.
It may be stated that the matter of classification was not jurisdiction of a single Member Bench of Tribunal as has been done by order dated 4.5.2006 in ST/03/2006 contrary to mandate of section 129C(4) of Customs Act, 1962 as adopted by section 83 of Finance Act, 1994. So also when service tax demand was Rs. 22,48,432/- (Ref: page 56 of appeal folder) in the earlier adjudication.
The appellants are distributors of sim cards needed to enable telecommunication service provided by BSNL through mobile telephone. They also market recharge coupons which enables additional duration of time for which such service is allowed to the customers of BSNL. BSNL supplies these cards with fixed Maximum Retail Price (MRP) to the appellants.
The first argument that classification of service cannot be changed in the hands of the recipient, by itself is good enough to allow this appeal. Further I note that there is no reference in the opening paragraph to the classification as indicated in column (2) of the Table in the Notification. This appears to be a serious lacuna. But such missing words cannot be supplied by anyone interpreting the provisions. Secondly the description in Column (3) of the Table is Services provided for export of said goods.
The benefit of Cenvat credit paid on outdoor catering services received by the appellants for providing food to their employees as also service tax paid on running a cab service for transportation of employees from home to factory and back to home stands denied on the ground that the said services cannot be held to be eligible cenvatable input services.
The second objection of the department is that the appellant do not satisfy the conditions no. 2(e) of 12/05 ST regarding non-availment of cenvat credit. The appellant’s plea from the very beginning has been that they have never availed cenvat credit either in respect of inputs or input services and that they have been claiming filing only the rebate in respect of input/input services from time to time and that in the ST-3 Return for October 2010 – March, 2011 the rebate claim had been mentioned as cenvat credit availed by mistake.
