We are unable to find from the orders of the authorities below as to the manner how the appellant has failed to get benefit of Notification No. 32/2004-ST, dated 3-12-2004.
The appellant brings out that since the liability is determinable after 18-2-2006, it has discharged tax liability with interest in respect of both the appeals although it sought registration after the impugned period. It was given to understand that the period covered in both the appeals are prior to the delivery of the judgment of Apex Court in the aforesaid citation.
Now the issue to be examined is whether shifting of goods within the factory premises amounts to production or processing of goods for, or on behalf of, the client. Obviously the word production cannot cover shifting of goods.
Certainly the procedure prescribed by rule 4(7) of Cenvat Credit Rules needs interpretation in favour of Revenue. But to the extent service tax is paid in respect of an invoice and in a contingency of retention of part of payment for any dispute on the invoice or any other legal purpose, disallowance of cenvat credit to the extent of tax paid shall cause hardship to the taxpayer.
In the case of Kushboo Plastics (P.) Ltd. v. CCE 2002 (149) ELT 694 (Tri.-Delhi), it was held that credit is admissible on the basis of invoices issued by the consignment agent who are registered as a dealer. Clarification issued by the Jaipur Commissionerate, which was based on the Chief Commissioner’s letter dated 26.5.2000 was taken into consideration.
Hence, the Cenvat credit is admissible to the appellant of the service tax paid by them on the service of ‘dismantling’ as the same is duly covered under the definition of input service.
Undisputedly, late Smt. Bimla Rani was the proprietor of the respondent firm M/s Shree Ambica Steel Industries. She died on 17.9.2006 and after her death the legal heir applied for cancellation of Excise registration in the name of the firm and the registration was admittedly cancelled by the Department in October, 2006.
Notification No. 12/2003-ST dated 20-6-2003 excludes the value of the goods and materials sold by the service provider to the recipient of service, from the value of the taxable services. The said exclusion is subject to the condition that there is documentary proof specifically indicating the value of the said goods and materials.
Apex Court in in the case of M.M. Rubber Co. (supra) of held that power under section 35E is a power of superintendence conferred on a superior authority to ensure that the subordinate officers exercise their powers under the Act correctly and properly and when a time limit is prescribed for exercise of this power,
The definition of ‘input service’, as given in Rule 2 (I) of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 has two parts. The main definition part during the period of dispute covered – “any service used by a provider of taxable service for providing in output service, or used by a manufacturer, whether directly or indirectly, in or in relation to the manufacture of final products and clearance of final products from the place of removal.” The inclusive portion during the period of dispute covered certain service and group of service specifically mentioned. The group of services mentioned in the inclusive portion is – “activities relating to business, such as auditing, accounting, financing,
