Tiger Steel Engineering India Pvt. Ltd. („the assessee?) is registered with Central Excise Department for the manufacture of pre-fabricated steel buildings, falling under Chapter 94 of Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. The assessee also avails of the CENVAT credit facility under CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 („CENVAT Rules?). From 1 January 2007 to 30 June 2008, the assessee cleared its finished goods, namely, pre-fabricated building without payment of Central Excise duty to a unit located in Special Economic Zone („SEZ?) under a letter of undertaking. These goods so cleared to SEZ without payment of duty were regarded as exports and accordingly, the assessee filed six refund claims in respect of the unutilized CENVAT credit under Rule 5 of the CENVAT Rules. The refund claims filed by the assessee were rejected by the Original Adjudicating authority and on appeal to the Commissioner (Appeals), the order of the Adjudicating authority was set aside by concluding that the supplies to SEZ units amount to exports for the purpose of Rule 5 of CENVAT Rules. The Department has filed the present appeal against the said order to the Customs Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal („CESTAT?).
There is no direct decision in favour of the Revenue for levy of service tax on the service component of a works contract prior to 01/06/2007. On the other hand, the judgment of the Hon’ble High Court in Indian National Shipowners ‘Association case is directly against the Revenue and the same is binding on this Bench of the Tribunal.
The appellant is entitled to Cenvat Credit availed on the garden maintenance service which are used in or in relation to the manufacture of final products or used in relation to the business activity and in this case the services used by the appellants are in relation to the business activity, he is entitled for Cenvat Credit.
M/s. Converge Labs Software Technologies Pvt. Ltd. (‘Converge’) is a 100% export oriented unit (‘EOU’) operating under the Software Technology Parks of India (‘STPI’) Scheme and is engaged in the development and export of software. Notification No. 140/91-Cus dated 22nd October 1991 (‘subject Notification’), granted exemption from the Customs Duty to goods imported into India by a 100% EOU under the STPI Scheme subject to certain specified conditions.
Based on the aforementioned observation, the CESTAT held that the software imported by Appellant was only modified packaged software and not „Customized Software? and would not be eligible to the exemption under the subject notification, which applies only to the Custom designed software. Hence, CESTAT upheld the impugned order passed by the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals) and rejected the appeal.
The transfer of brand name does not have any meaning for the buyer until and unless the know-how for the manufacture of the formulations sold under that particular brand name, is also transferred.
Service tax credit cannot be taken when service tax has not been shown to have been paid by service provider; once it is found that Cenvat credit was irregularly availed by the assessee and by implication to that extent the service tax on the output service was short paid, it has to be recovered under Rule 14 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004.
NICHOLAS PIRAMEL (I) LTD. Versus COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, THANE-I- The provisions of Rules 6(3)(b) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2002 are not applicable when the amount equivalent of the Cenvat Credit attributable to the common inputs used in, or in relation to, the manufacture of exempted final products has been paid prior to the removal of exempted final products from the factory.
Employment of outdoor caterer for providing catering services has to be considered as an input service relating to the business and cenvat credit in respect of the same will be admissible.
TR-6 challan is the most primary document evidencing payment of duty/tax. No doubt the TR-6 challan was not included in the list of specified documents. It was included by virtue of Notification No.28/2005-CE(NT) dated 7/6/2005. I find that this is an inadvertent omission, which was rectified by issuing the said Notification. This is so because any duty payment documents is related to, and based on TR-6 challan which is the source document. Similar view has been taken up by the Hon’ble Tribunal in the case of National Organics Chemical India Ltd., reported in 2004 (178) ELT 331 (Tri.). The appellant’s case is squarely covered by this judgement. I, therefore hold that disallowance of Cenvat credit is not correct. Consequently interest and penalty also do not sustain. Order-in-original is liable to be set aside.
