The decisions of the Tribunal in the case of CCE v. Future Polyesters Ltd. [Final Order No. 782 of 2011, dated 8-7-2011] is clearly to the effect that most of the impugned activities would not fall under the definition of Management Consultancy service. Though compliance with laws is part of the responsibilities of management such responsibility per se cannot bring it into the ambit of the words ‘in connection with the management of any organization’ used in section 65 (105)(r) and section 65(65) to tax such services
It is no longer, res integra that in a contract for providing service of the type involved in this case the service component and value of materials can be separated. Notification 12/2003-ST also recognises this principle. The only dispute that remains is whether value of materials sold “can be segregated based just on the value on which VAT is paid.
We find that show cause notice stands issued on 7-2-2007 for the period 1-7-2003 to 31-8-2004, thus invoking the longer period of limitation. Tribunal in the case of Brij Motors (P.) Ltd. v. CCE [Final Order No. ST/601/2011, dated 22-11-2011] as [2012 (25) STR 489 (Tri – Delhi)] has taken note of the fact that the were decisions of the Tribunal holding in favour of the assessees and as such has held the demand to be barred by limitation.
The appellant filed this appeal against the impugned order whereby the demand of service tax on the ground that the appellants, for the purpose of paying service tax, did not include the value of materials used by them for providing such service. The contention of the appellant is that demand is time-barred as the show-cause notice was issued on 22.9.2006 demanding service tax for the period 16.7.2001 to 31.3.2005 by invoking extended period on the ground of suppression. The appellant submitted that the Tribunal, in CCE v. R.K. Photo studio vide Final Order Nos. ST/503-504/2011 dated 25.8.2011, after taking into consideration the Board Circular F. No. 233/2/2003-CX dated 7.4.2004, held that the demand beyond the normal period is not sustainable, in such type of case.
Even if it was accepted that the canteen service provided by the assessee was necessary for improving the efficiency of the worker and the same was eligible for Cenvat credit but in terms of Larger Bench decision in the case of CCE v. GTC Industries Ltd. [2008] 17 STT 63 (Mum. – CESTAT) there is no dispute about the fact that as part of the cost of providing canteen service had been recovered from the workers and to that extent the assessee would not be eligible for the Cenvat credit.
Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Singh Enterprises v. Commissioner 2005 (189) ETL A-113 (SC) has held that Commissioner (Appeals) has no power to condone the delay beyond the period of 90 days. We also refer to a listed decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Rajasthan Mechanical Works vide which Delhi High Court judgement was upheld.
There is no dispute about role of consignment agent attributing to the promotion of the sale. Once sale promotion falls within Rule 2 (l) of Cenvat Credit Rules 2004, admissibility of cenvat credit of the service tax paid in respect of such service availed is permissible.
The appellants were engaged in the business of renting out low-floor buses to Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation (RSTRC) on contract basis. RSTRC was using the buses as stage carriers for transportation of persons. The appellants did not pay service tax on the consideration received from RSTRC during the period 01-06-2007 to 31-12-2007.
Any order for imposing penalty specially the heavy once qas provided under Section 76 and 77, of the Act should show the reason justifying the imposition of penalty and thus following the principles of justice done. It is a fact on record that the Appellants had asked for clarification regarding availability of benefit of exemption Notification No. 12/2003 dated 20.6.03 from the department time and time again but as no response was made to their request under a bona fide belief of availability of said exemption notification had availed the benefit of said exemption notification.
The appellant has placed on record the authorization letter dated 15.3.2005 addressed by PBPL to Assistant /Deputy Commissioner, Central Excise, Varanasi authorising the appellant to manufacture biscuit on their behalf. Further perusal of the terms and conditions mutually agreed upon between PBPL and the appellant would show that as per the job work contract the appellant were required to process and manufacture biscuit, carry out inspection, packing and delivery to various depot of PBPL located all over the country as directed by PBPL.
