It was held that the supplies to SEZ should be treated as exports and no reversal of CENVAT is required to be done under Rule 6 as amended with effect from 10.09.2004.
In the case of J.P. Morgan Services India Private Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise(Service Tax), Mumbai, it was held that the benefit of export rebate cannot be denied even if the services are exported prior to the date when Export of Service Rules, 2005 are brought into the statute.
Services of commission agent abroad is input services as the commission agent procured the orders for the appellant and thereafter the appellant manufactured the goods. Therefore, CENVAT credit of service tax paid on such services is available.
It was held that the rate of duty applicable on the differential assessable value recovered at the depot premises attributable to the products manufactured would be the rate applicable to the said goods when they were cleared from the factory premises.
In the present case admittedly the sale has not taken place from the factory gate but goods were sold from the depot and at the time of sale from the depot the price charged was the price minus quantity discount, therefore, the price excluding the quantity discount is an amount payable at the time of sale or at any other time.
In the case of Bank of Baroda VS Commissioner of Service Tax it was held that the service of transmission and exchange of financial messages falls under the category of Banking and Other Financial Services and service tax should be levied accordingly
In the case of Sumit Wool Processors vs. Commissioner of Customs (Import) / (Export) it was held that it is a settled law that even a license obtained by fraud or mis-representation of facts is only voidable and not void ab-initio. It is good in law until it is avoided.
Whether the Assessee is required to file refund claim under Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944 for refund of the amount deposited during investigation despite of the fact of appeal allowed in Assessee’s favour with consequential relief?
It is true that the service rendered by the assessee by way of sale of pre‐paid SIM cards through distributors was ultimately received by the subscribers. However, where the law prescribes the value of taxable service to be the gross amount charged by the service‐provider, Service tax can be levied on that amount only.
The issue of limitation of claim under Sec 11B as raised by Revenue is also not maintainable because the amount paid by the appellant in excess of their service tax liability ceased to be in nature of service tax paid by them and is merely an excess deposit paid by the appellant.
