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.
The assessee was registered with the Central Excise Department on its own on 16-6-2005. It was a proprietorship concern and it was required to file the service tax returns quarterly, which it had been filing meticulously with the Department. However, due to non-understanding of the relevant provisions of law, there was some short-payment of service tax during the period from August 2005 to October, 2006. However, when the said short payment was brought to the assessee’s notice in November, 2006 by the Visiting Departmental Officers, the entire amount of service tax was paid.
The assessee had reflected the service tax liability on account of service provided by him during the period April, 2007 to September, 2007 in the ST-3 returns filed with the department. The reason for delay in making payment had been sufficiently explained by the assessee in his reply, stating that due to sudden crash in the stock market, the main broker of whom he was the sub-broker, defaulted in making the payment. This had resulted in non-payment of service tax liability in time. The reason is bona fide in non-payment of service tax in time.
