The department has issued clarification vide circular No.59/8/2003-ST dated 20.6.2003 and as per the said clarification, it was clarified that in case of commercial training and coaching institutes, the exclusion shall apply only to the sale value of standard textbooks, which are priced. Any study material or written text provided by such institute as a part of service which does not satisfy the above criteria will be subjected to service tax. On the basis of this clarification, the demand has been confirmed against the appellant.
The issue is whether giving bullock-carts on consideration amounts to supply of tangible goods service. As per the definition of tangible goods service it includes machinery, equipment and appliances. Bullock-carts prima facie cannot be considered as machinery, equipment or appliances. In view of this, the applicants have made out a case for total waiver for hearing of the appeal.
A perusal of the impugned orders clearly evidences the lack of clarity and understanding on the part of the department. The activity of live telecast of the horse race has been classified as ‘broad casting services’ during one part of the period and during another period, the very same activity is classified as ‘intellectual property rights service’.
As rightly pointed out by the Ld. AR, the refund claim ought to be filed within a period of one year from the payment of service tax by the person claiming the refund as per the provisions of section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944 read with section 83 of the Finance Act, 1994. From the records it is seen that the appellant had paid the service tax on 24/10/2008, and the refund claim was filed on 28/01/2010 i.e. after a lapse of one year from the date of payment of tax. Therefore, the rejection of refund claim on account of time bar is sustainable in law.
Ammonia is imported by the appellant and after goods are cleared from the port and the goods are delivered to the appellants. Procurement of the input is over after taking delivery of the goods. Thereafter appellants are eligible for credit of service tax paid on inward transportation of the inputs as per definitions of the input service.
Inasmuch as the department has received the amount due from the appellant quoting of wrong registration number in the concerned challans is only a technical error which can be rectified at the department’s end itself.
Appellants are the manufacturer of country liquor under the brand name “Pahili Dhar” which is a registered trade name of the appellant themselves. The appellants are having the agreement with M/s. Talreja Trade (HUF) for marketing this liquor. Therefore, it cannot be said that the appellant are the job-workers for Talreja Trade as they are the selling agents of the appellants. With these observations, we find that the appellant are not liable to pay service tax under “Business Auxiliary Service” on the above mentioned activity. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed with consequential relief, if any.
Refund has been denied to the appellant on the ground that refund of Cenvat credit had been claimed in respect of input services received by the appellant after the period of export and hence cannot be considered as input services used for the purpose of exported service during the period in question. This is a fact on record that these input services were received after the period of export and this fact is not challenged by the appellants. I find that the Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka has examined admissibility of refund under Rule 5 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 in case of Shell India Markets (P.) Ltd. v. CCE 2012 (278) ELT 50 (Kar.)and the Hon’ble High Court in para 7 of its judgment has held as under:-
In the instant case, the service rendered is promotion/marketing of the goods of the client in India by rendering various services such as demonstration, installation, after sales warranty and advertising services for which the appellant received a consideration. These activities are rendered in India and their effective use and enjoyment are in India and therefore, the benefit of the services rendered also accrue in India and hence leviable to service tax.
Whether the Cenvat credit can be denied on the ground that the invoice number was handwritten or rubber stamped but not printed on invoice? The appellants are in appeal against the impugned orders wherein input credit taken by them on duty paid invoice was denied only on the basis that the invoice number was handwritten or rubber stamped but not printed.A show-cause notice was issued and demands were confirmed by both the lower authorities. Aggrieved from the said orders, an appeal was filed before the CESTAT-Mumbai.
