2. The issue involved in this case is the payment received by M/s Indian Oil Corporation Ltd for transfer of technical specifications and knowhow for manufacture of product called “ZSM-5 Additive” which when added to the Fluid Catalytic Cracking Catalyst enhances LPG yield. This knowhow is provided to Sud-Chemie India Ltd,90, Nehru Place, New Delhi (SCIL).
Ld. Counsel Shri Pahwa argues that the second category of work carried out with M/s. Unitech Machines Ltd., Gurgaon is exhibited by para 34 of the adjudication order at page 94. In this case, the appellant acted as a sub-contractor and tax liability has been discharged by the principal contractor. According to him such aspect remains undisputed by Revenue, in which no liability arose. But this is subject to scrutiny in the course of regular hearing.
As per clause (zr) of section 65(105), service tax is leviable on any service provided to any person, by a cargo handling agency in relation to cargo handling service. The argument of the Appellant is that they could never understand that they were a cargo handling agency because they are in the business of warehousing of goods for which they were already paying service tax. This was a service provided by the contractors and the charges were recovered from the customers who use such services. But as a corporation owned by the Rajasthan State they did not want to enter into dispute on this issue with the Union of India and as soon as the issue was pointed out to them they started paying tax for the charges collected by them and paid to their contractor who was providing the service.
The Explanation given by the CBEC vide its Circular No. 643/34/2002-CX dated 1-7-2002 cannot apply in the cases where the transaction value of the concerned goods is available on record; to ignore such value on the record and to take resort to the explanation given by the CBEC would virtually amount to defeat the mandate of Rule 3(4) which will result In giving overriding effect to the explanation of the CBEC over and above and contrary to the provisions in the statutory rule comprised under Rule 3(4) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2002.
Cenvat credit : Manufacturers are not debarred from availing benefit under Notification No. 8/2003-CE dated 1-3-2003 in relation to goods other than goods which are excluded from benefit of said notification while simultaneously seeking to avail benefit of Cenvat credit or Modvat credit in relation to such excluded goods provided they are cleared on payment of full duty
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.
