Till and until both the credit earned and the product on which the credit is earned are lawfully utilized, it cannot be said that the credit has been lawfully and completely utilized; of course, the utilization of credit and utilization of input may not necessarily be in relation to one and the same final product; it can be in relation to two different dutiable final products.
We have carefully considered the submissions from both the sides and, prima facie, we hold that the liability to tax shall arise only from 16.6.2005 consequent upon amendment enlarging the scope of the impugned services. The decision relied upon by the learned Consultant is in support of the case of the applicant. In view of the above, we hold that the applicant has made out a case for waiver of pre-deposit of dues as per impugned order. Accordingly we waive pre-deposit of balance amount of dues as per impugned order and stay recovery thereof till disposal of the appeal.
We find that the issue is no more res-integra and stands settled by various decisions of the Tribunal. One such reference can be made to the Tribunal decision in the case of Sri Venkata Balaji Jute (P) Ltd Vs CCED Vishkhapatnam reported in 2010 (19) STR 403 wherein by following the Tribunal decision in the case of Commissioner of Central Excise Vapi Vs Unimark Remedies Ltd reported in 2009 (15) STR 254 (Trib), it has been that the Notification does not require consignment -wise declaration on consignment notes.
The only ground on which the refund claim has been rejected is that the original copy of TR-6 challan was not produced. Since according to the appellant, the original copy is now available with them, the appellant are directed to produce the same before the original Adjudicating Authority. The impugned order is, therefore, set aside and the matter is remanded to the original Adjudicating Authority for reconsidering the refund application on merits after taking into account the original copy of the TR-6 challan produced by the appellant. The same can be accepted, if on verification, the department is satisfied about its authenticity.
Display of logo for promoting a brand not taxable under Business Auxiliary Services but Promotion of Brand of Goods, services, events, business entity, etc. w.e.f. 01.07.2010.
Section 67 of the Finance Act, providing for levy of service tax on the gross amount charged by the service provider for the service provided plus/minus the inclusions/exclusions as mentioned in Explanation 1 to this section, satisfy the test for correctness of the measure prescribed by Supreme Court in the case of UOI v. Bombay Tyre International
The appellant came up in appeal against Order-in-Original dated 27.7.2009 passed by learned Commissioner relating to the period July 2003 to January 2007, giving rise to following consequences
We are of the prima facie view that from the number of invoices, it is clear that the invoices dated 29.07.2005, 26.08.2005, 1.8.2005, 22.10.2005 and 26.11.2005 had been issued at a later date in 2006, as the invoice number of these invoices issued during July 2005 to November, 2005 period is of the year 2006 and under these invoices, the credit amounting to about Rs.60 lakhs had been taken.
For allowing credit of tax paid on input goods/service used in or in relation to manufacture of a finished product, what is relevant is as to whether the items in respect of which input duty credit is being claimed are covered by the definition of “input” or “input service” and finished product is chargeable to duty for allowing the credit of duty paid on input goods and/or of service tax paid on input services; it is not relevant as to whether the duty on the finished product has been paid at specific rate or at ad valorem rate and of at ad valorem rate whether on the assessable value determined under section 4 or section 4A of the Excise Act.
Coming to the merits of the case, the first question that needs to be decided is whether the appellant had a reasonable opportunity to present its case. It is rightly contended by learned counsel for the respondent that there is no requirement of the Commission to invite parties to present their point of view before forming a prima-facie opinion. But the Commission may for the purpose of satisfying itself on any aspect permit the parties to present
