Question whether the place where goods are stored after clearance from the factory on payment of duty can be considered as place of removal for the purpose of Rule 2(l) of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 is no longer res integra because of the clarification issued by the CBEC in the matter.
I do not agree with the argument that the time-limit under Notification dated 1-3-2011 cannot be made applicable to the claims filed before that date and pending on that date. I also consider the fact that even under the earlier notification, the Deputy Commissioner had power to condone the delay. The delay involved was only 17 days and when a public authority is given any power, he is expected to exercise it unless there is a reason for not exercising such power.
No doubt, mere submission of document shall not ipso facto grant relief to claimant. But once the facts and circumstances of the case bring out the identity of the receipient of service, denial of cenvat credit may cause absurdity and when claim is otherwise permissible. Added to this, the claimant appellant should not make multiple claim using same document in different locations to avail cenvat credit and ensure that no jeopardy is caused to Revenue. But such an allegation of multiple claim is absent in the present case.
Prima facie, liability to pay service tax arises with reference to the place where service was provided rather than the place where consideration was collected
The applicant were discharging their Service Tax liability in respect of tuition fee being charged by them from their students. Their premises were visited by the officers on 7.1.2010 and scrutiny of various records maintained by the appellants revealed that no Service Tax was being paid by them on pre-schooling coaching, sale of text books, conducting of mock test series etc.
Confirmation of demand under a category different than one proposed in the Show Cause Notice cannot be upheld. The Tribunal had, for the above proposition, relied up the earlier decision of the Tribunal in the case of Mahakoshal Beverages (P.) Ltd. v. CCE [2009] 18 STT 383 (Bang. – CESTAT).
We do not see any merit in the argument of the appellants that they were only an intermediary and not doing the work themselves and hence their activities did not amount to any service. Any service provided in relation to installation of electrical and electronic devices, including wirings or fittings, became taxable from 16-06-05.
When we read meaning of consignment note with the taxing entry under section 65 (105) (zzp) of the aforesaid Act it is inconceivable to bring the bullock carts transporting sugar cane to the fold of law, since law requires the transport made by goods carriage should only be brought to tax.
In the instant case instead of foreign exchange going out of India, there is conservation of foreign exchange in India to the extent of commission earned by the service provider appellant in view of the arrangement made by the service recipient abroad in that behalf through Indian Railways. Instead of appellant earning foreign exchange, the foreign exchange which otherwise would have flown out of India, due to import by Indian Railways, has been conserved. This appears to have fulfilled the object of export of service.
Ld. AR submits that appellant was not registered as service tax payer and as such no authorised representative stands mentioned by him. As the impugned order was served at the residential address of the appellant, it has to be considered as proper service of the order.
