As per Article 56 of the Schedule to the ADB Act, the bank, its assets, property, income and its operations and transactions, shall be exempt from all taxation and from all customs duties. The Bank shall also be exempt from any obligation for the payment, withholding or collection of any tax or duty and Section 5 of the ADB Act clearly says that notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in any other law,
Appellant has undertaken the activity of harvesting sugarcane and its transportation to sugar factory from the fields of farmers and this activity is in relation to sale of sugarcane by farmers and purchase of sugarcane by the sugar factory and service provided by a commission agent. In view of this finding, we find that the appellant is entitled for the benefit of Notification No. 13/2003-ST which provides exemption from payment of service tax in respect of service provided under “Business Auxiliary Service” in relation to the sale of agricultural products.
As regards the demand for payment of an amount @ 8% of the value of the exempted goods under Rule 57CC of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 made out in the show-cause notice, it has been noted that the appellants have not availed any credit of the duty paid either on the raw materials supplied by the principal manufacturer or on the raw materials used by them on their own account in the manufacture of job-worked product. When they have not availed any credit of the duty paid on the raw materials, the question of payment of duty @ 8% of the value of the exempted product under Rule 57CC will not arise at all.
Providing service of payment and receiving money on behalf of the government in respect of various transactions such as public deposit, RBI bond, EPF, senior citizen saving scheme, compulsory deposit scheme etc. does not fall under the category of Banking and Financial service and the above activity is exempt from banking and financial services. As the issue has attained finality by the order of the Tribunal in Canara Bank (supra) therefore following the same, we hold that the appellant are not liable to pay service tax confirmed against them by way of impugned order and we set aside the demand of service tax.
As per the definition of input service under rule 2 (1) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004, it includes services used in relation to modernization, renovation or repairs of a factory, premises of provider of output service or an office relating to such factory or premises, advertisement or sales promotion, market research, storage up to the place of removal, procurement of inputs, accounting, auditing, financing, recruitment and quality control, coaching and training, computer networking, credit rating, share registry, security, business exhibition, legal services, inward transportation of inputs or capital goods and outward transportation up to the place of removal, but excludes services specified in (A) (B) (BA) & C of the said definition.
As per the Business Associates Agreement entered into by the appellant with Syntel Inc., USA has agreed to provide marketing services in relation to software services developed by Syntel International Pvt. Ltd., India and Syntel Inc., USA has to identify customers in USA and make efforts to get the customers and assist Syntel (India) in respect of sales in USA by providing sales and technical information and other materials regarding Syntel services including sales promotion literature or brochures. It is for rendering these assistance, the consideration is paid. The consideration is paid in convertible foreign exchange and the appellant has discharged the service tax liability on reverse charge basis under section 66A of the Finance Act, 1994.
The Hon’ble High Court of Bombay in the case of CCE v. Ultratech Cement Ltd. [2010] 29 STT 244 (Bom.) considered the issue at length and held that the definition of input service under Rule 2(l) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, is very wide and covers not only services which are directly or indirectly used in or in relation to the manufacturing of final product but also after manufacturing of the final products.
There is one more ground on which the refund claim has been rejected i.e. prior to 16.05.2006 the appellant did not have registration as an input service distributor and hence the appellant could not have availed service tax credit on ISD basis. However, what is required to be seen is whether the appellant received the services at Nasik and if so the appellant used the same for rendering of the output service. These facts need to be verified by the revenue instead of summarily rejecting the claim.
It is well settled that the assessee is entitled to take CENVAT credit of service tax paid by them on the services availed by them in the course of business of manufacturing as held by the Hon’ble High Court of Bombay in the case of CCE v. Ultratech Cement Ltd. [2010] 29 STT 244 (Bom.).
In the present case, M/s Kijiji (India) (P.) Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as appellants) was engaged in providing Business auxiliary services to their customers located abroad. The appellant filed a refund claim for the service tax paid on input services such as legal services, market data, payroll processing, customers support activities, etc.,
