Saraswati Engineering Vs CCCES (Cestat) – If the assessee has discharged the service tax liability on his own ascertainment or on the basis of ascertainment by the Central Excise officers and inform the Central Excise officer of payment of such service tax then, no notice under sub-section (1) in respect of the amount so paid shall be served.
In this case the appellant have deposited the amount under protest on differential value of the goods cleared by them to their sister unit/group companies. While adjudication, the show-cause notice demanding the differential duty was dropped and it was subsequently held in the order that the supplementary invoices issued by the assessee under rule 57AE of Central Excise Rules, 1944 is declared void for the purpose of taking MODVAT/CENVAT credit.
In this case, the Commissioner (Appeals) has reduced the tax amount and hence the respondents cannot take advantage of the provision under the fourth proviso to Section 78. Having not paid the penalty amount within one month from the date of the Order-in-Original even though the legal provision was clearly brought to the notice of the respondents by the original authority in para 14 of his order, the respondents cannot be given the benefit of paying 25% of the reduced penalty.
The question whether ‘Mithi River’ is a river or not, is a pure question of fact which needs to be examined and settled at the final hearing stage of the appeal. For the present, we consider the fact that the activity undertaken by the appellant in the aforesaid stream of water was ‘dredging’. Their limited case is that the activity was undertaken in a drain and not in a river. WE note that even the agreement between the appellant and MMRDA describes the stream as ‘Mithi River’. It cannot be called otherwise merely by reason of the fact that rainwater or domestic sewage from the surrounding areas are also flowing into it or that industrial effluents are discharged into it.
Substantial benefit cannot be denied on the basis of mere technical violation. In this case, the respondents have made effort to obtain certified copy of the bill of entry which was also denied to them. Further it is not disputed that the goods have not suffered duty and they have not been used in the manufacture of final product. Therefore, the respondents are entitled for CENVAT credit availed by them on the strength of xerox copy. Accordingly, I do not find any infirmity with the impugned order and the same is upheld. Appeal filed by the Revenue is rejected.
4. After hearing both sides, I find that this issue has been already settled by Hon’ble High Court of Bombay in the case of CCE vs. Ultratech Cement Ltd. reported in 2010 (260) ELT 369 = (2010-IST-46-HC-MUM-ST wherein the Hon’ble High Court of Bombay has held that input service credit availed by the assessee on outdoor catering is available subject to that the assessee does not charge anything from the employees (in case the cost of food supplied to the worker forms part of the assessable value.) As there is no allegation ag
Explore the CESTAT judgment upholding precedent decisions on EOU duty discharge and DTA sale eligibility. Know the legal insights in this insightful read.
Refund – export of services – relevant date – The Commissioner (Appeals) has held that in such a case the relevant date is the date when the payment of service (exported) is received by the assessee not the date when the service is provided. Against that order, Revenue is in appeal on the premise that the relevant date is the date of service tax paid as per Section 11B of Central Excise Act, 1944. – Held that: – it is very much clear in the case of export of service, the relevant date is the date when the payment of service exported has been received by the assessee.
Interest on refund of pre-deposit amount is payable from the date of receipt of order of the tribunal by the commissioner. Interest to be paid on amount of pre deposit at the rate prescribed under the statutory provisions of the Act and not as per rate determined on equitable principles by Tribunal.
I find that this is a case where the impugned period is from 01.04.05 to 15.09.05. The respondent assessees have taken service tax registration only on 06.12.05 and the very first return has been filed by them on 04.12.06, after a long delay. I also find that in para 2 (iv), there is an allegation of suppression of value of taxable service in the show cause notice dated 12.03.07.
