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.
The definition of ‘input service’ provided under rule 2(l) of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 covers a gamut of activities relating to the business undertaken by the manufacturer or the service provider. In the case under consideration the appellant has used the vehicles owned by them either for transportation of their employees or for transportation of goods which is an integral part of the business of appellant-firm.
One for transfer of business goodwill and the other for collection, delivery and handling of fly ash on which service tax liability is being discharged. By no stretch imagination, payment of goodwill on transfer of business can come under the category of business auxiliary services; therefore, we do not find any merit in the Revenue’s appeal.
Visa facilitators, merely facilitate the procurement of visa and directly assist individuals who intend to travel abroad, to complete the immigration formalities. Visa facilitators collect certain statutory charges like visa fee, certification fee, attestation fee, emigration fee, etc. from the visa applicant, which are remitted to the respective authorities, and in addition collect service charges for themselves as remuneration for the assistance provided by them to obtain the visa.
Issue: Whether there is need for one to one co-relation of CENVAT credit availed on input services towards payment of output services? Facts: The appellants are manufacturer of transmission towers and also providing services of erection, commissioning & installation, management, maintenance or repair, testing, inspection of these towers etc. for their activity of manufacturing and providing the above services, the appellants availed CENVAT credit on inputs, capital goods and input services.
In the present case, during the course of scrutiny of the records of M/s Shah Precicast (P) Ltd. (Respondent), it was found that they had taken Cenvat credit on the strength of the Xerox copy of the bill of entry. Therefore, the Revenue issued a show-cause notice for wrong availment of Cenvat credit on the strength of Xerox copy of bill of entry and proposing penalty for suppression of facts with an intention to evade duty.
From the Board’s Circular dated 19/01/2010, it is abundantly clear that refund of Cenvat credit can be allowed irrespective of when the credit was taken in case of service providers exporting 100% of their services. From the facts narrated in the order dated 13/01/2012, wherein the refund claim has been partly allowed, it is evident that the appellant was continuously undertaking exports during the said period and there were no domestic clearances. Therefore, in terms of the Board circular and also the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Chamundi Textiles (Silk Mills) Ltd., (supra), the appellant is eligible for the refund of the entire amount of service tax credit paid by them on the input service irrespective of when the credit was taken.
