In absence of any particular format prescribed under the respective notifications, the department insisting for declaration on each consignment note for allowing the abatement under the said Notifications is un-sustainable in law. In these circumstances the declarations filed by the Goods Transport Agencies (GTA) in their letter-heads or in the respective payment bills certifying that they have not availed Cenvat credit on puts or capital goods nor availed the benefit of exemption Notification 12/2003 S.T., dated 20-6-2003 should have been accepted by the department in extending the benefit of Notification Nos. 32/2003- S.T. and 1/2006-S.T. In view of the above findings, we do not see any merit in the impugned orders passed by the ld. Commissioner. Consequently the order is set aside and the Appeals are allowed.
Undisputedly the respondent deposited the amount at the investigation stage and the proceeding initiated against them were dropped by ld. Commissioner (Appeals) vide his order dated 9-2-2011. It is a case of refund of deposit of duty and not a refund of duty therefore the principle of unjust enrichment which is applicable to refund of duty is not applicable in this case.
Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Sarvesh Refractories (P.) Ltd. v. CCE&C 2007 (218) ELT 488 has held that the issue of classification of the input/raw materials supplied by the input supplier cannot be questioned in the hands of input receiver while allowing Modvat/Cenvat credit.
Undisputedly the appellant had received input services viz. GTA and Business Auxiliary Service and used the same in or in relation to the manufacture and trading of Electric Meters. It is also not in dispute that credit of Rs. 3,41,397/- availed by the appellant on the said input services were not exclusively used in or in relation to the manufacture of Electricity Meters, but also used for trading purposes.
We find from the Central Excise Registration and the other documents furnished by the applicant that the Registration by Central Excise Department has been given by including PAN Number of SAIL. There is no dispute that the applicant is an unit of M/s SAIL and the other units are also part of M/s SAIL. Thus, we find that the service is being provided to self,
We are of the view that even if technically, scope of sections 76 and 78 of the Act may be different, as submitted on behalf of the revenue, the fact that penalty has been levied under section 78 could be taken into account for levying or not levying penalty under section 76 of the Act. In such situation, even if reasoning given by the appellate authority that if penalty under section 78 of the Act was imposed, penalty under section 76 of the Act could never be imposed may not be correct,
Thus in case of service tax also the Commissioner (A) is not empowered to remand the matter, he has to decide the matter by himself. Therefore the order of ld. Commissioner (Appeals) remanding the case to the lower authority, is not sustainable.
No doubt the Notification requires that details of export invoices should be mentioned in lorry receipts and shipping bills, however, there is no bar to provide these details separately in case the original lorry receipts/shipping bills did not contain these details. The Revenue is free to insist on verification in such cases and refund can be granted only after verification. The question whether such condition is substantive or otherwise is not required to be examined. Matter remanded to adjudicating authority for verification in aforementioned terms.
We find that the impugned exemption notification allowing refund of service tax paid in respect of exports has been issued with the sole objective of removing the burden of service tax from the export goods. It has been rightly contended by the ld. advocate that it is the avowed policy of the Government not to export domestic tax along with export goods and to make such goods competitive in the foreign market.
Assessee procured mutual fund subscription for SKP Securities Ltd. and Eastern Financial Ltd. The applicants are not mutual fund distributors nor they are agents thereof. The applicants could not produce any evidence in this regard. Therefore, the case law in the case of P.N. Vijay Financial Services (P.) Ltd. (supra) us not applicable to their case. Accordingly, the benefits of Notification are also not available to them. The applicants also could not produce any evidence that they have received commission directly from mutual fund companies being a registered mutual fund distributors.
