|
Advanced Search Options
Service Tax - Case Laws
Showing 1 to 20 of 29242 Records
-
2024 (4) TMI 685
Condonation of delay of 1776 days in filing the Civil Appeal - Rectification of mistake - mistake apparent of the face of record or not - Refund claim - export of services or not - it was held by High Court that The Tribunal’s order rejecting application of the petitioner to rectify mistake apparent from record in its order cannot be faulted - HELD THAT:- Issue notice on the application for condonation of delay as well as on the Special Leave Petition and the Civil Appeal.
-
2024 (4) TMI 684
Maintainability of petition - availability of alternate remedy before the appellate Commissioner under Section 85 of the Finance Act, 1994 - marginal delay in filing the present Writ Petition - HELD THAT:- Since the petitioner has an alternate remedy before the appellate Commissioner under Section 85 of the Finance Act, 1994, I am inclined to dispose of this Writ Petition by giving liberty to the petitioner to file statutory appeal before the appellate Commissioner within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order subject to the petitioner depositing 20% of the disputed tax considering the delay involved. If such an appeal is filed by the petitioner within 30 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order together with pre-deposit of 20% i.e., 10% over and above what is contemplated under Section 35-F of the Central Excise Act, 1944, the appeal shall be entertained and disposed by the Commissioner on merits and in accordance with law.
Since the Deputy Commissioner of GST & Central Excise, Madurai I Division, has been arrayed as the sole respondent in this Writ Petition, the Commissioner of CGST & Central Excise, Madurai – I Division, No.5, V.P. Rathinasamy Nadar Road, Bibikulam, Madurai – 625 002, is suo motu impleaded as second respondent in the Writ Petition.
Petition disposed off.
-
2024 (4) TMI 683
Scope of SCN - Classification of service - Club or Association services or not - services of licencing the copyrights in musical works to its members who had only paid subscription fee of meager amount and licensing of copyright in musical work - HELD THAT:- The Show-cause cum demand notice lacks clarity about the recipient of the service and the nature of services provided to it allegedly by the appellant.
The nature of service provided by the appellant was stated to be administration of copyrights owned by its members and it is in the nature of facilities or advantages extended to its members. However, going by the factual background, it is noticed that appellant is a company and not a Society registered under Society Registration Act but it collects monthly subscription fee from its members. Apart from this amount no other consideration flows from the members/ copyright owners to the appellant and there is no denial of the fact that entire collection from the membership had never exceeded the threshold prescribed for registration of a Company under Service Tax.
Clause 29A of Article 366 of Constitution of India defines all services associated with sale of goods or lease of the kind as deemed sale and as because Intellectual Property, which in the present case is copyright and other related rights in the nature of performance, play etc. that is not in tangible form, the same may not be included under the definition of services under Section 65B (44 read with Section 66E) but the very fact that Section 65 (55b) that defines “Intellectual Property Services” expressly excludes copyright from the category of Intellectual Property services and there is also no demand against such licence fee/ royalty collected by the appellant from the customers/ users, the order of the Commissioner is unsustainable in both law and facts. Further demand being confirmed against administrative expenditure that was deducted from the membership fee and royalty/ licence fee by a non-profit organization namely assesse, consideration should also be treated as ‘Nil’ for the purpose of taxation.
The order passed by the Commissioner of Service Tax-VI, Mumbai is hereby set aside - Appeal allowed.
-
2024 (4) TMI 682
Time limitation - Levy of service tax - Manpower Supply Service - secondment of employees by the Appellant to its associated Foreign Counterpart at Germany on reverse charge mechanism - suppression of facts or not - HELD THAT:- In the present case it could be noticed that show-cause notice was issued on 16.10.2015 up to the end of financial year 2013-2014 during the relevant period and in view of clear provision contained in Section 73(1) read with 73(6), the normal period for making demand through show-cause notice was 18 months from the relevant date and if any fraud, collusion, wilful misstatement, suppression of facts, contravention of any of the provisions of this Chapter or the Rules made thereunder with intent to evade payment of Service Tax is noticed in view of proviso to Section 73(1), Central Excise Officer can served notice for demand that could be extended up to 5 years. This being the statutory provision, the notice of demand being signed on 16.10.2015 and dispatched thereafter cannot be considered to have been sent within 18 months of the end of financial years, up to which demand is made i.e. up to 31st March 2014 - the show-cause notice is not issued in conformity to the law and, therefore, it was required to be quashed before initiation of adjudication proceeding.
Appellant having filed its return for the said period on 25.10.2013, in view of clear provision contained in Section 73(6)(i)(a) wherein it has been mentioned that for the purpose of determination of “relevant date”, periodical return filed on the date showing particulars of Service Tax paid during the period to which return relates would be taken for the purpose of calculation of period of limitation of 18 months, which would end on 25.01.2015 the entire demand is barred by limitation.
The contention made by the Appellant that this appeal is hopelessly barred by the period of limitation, agreed upon, as the entire proceeding is carried out in gross violation of the position of law and deviation in any form from the statutory provision is impermissible.
The order passed by the Principal Commissioner of Central Excise & Service Tax, Pune-I is hereby set aside - Appeal allowed.
-
2024 (4) TMI 681
Non-payment of service tax - commercial and industrial construction service - rendering of service even before registering with the department on 11.6.2007, but it had not paid any service tax on such services - non-payment of service tax on some projects/contracts on the ground that they were charitable/educational hospitals or projects - non-payment of service tax on certain residential construction on the ground that they were residential units - collection of some amounts as ‘service tax’ in some of the running bills on these projects, but did not deposit these amounts in the exchequer - non-inclusion of value of materials supplied free of cost by its clients in the value of taxable services - non-payment of service tax at all in respect of the services rendered by it from April 2009 to June 2010.
Demand for the services provided prior to 1.6.2007 are concerned, the demand is under the head ‘commercial and industrial construction service’ - HELD THAT:- During this period, the appellant was not registered with the service tax. From 1.6.2007, the appellant is registered under the head ‘Works Contract Service’ and paid service tax on the service. There is no dispute that the nature of the service was the same both before and after 01.06.2007 - ‘Works Contract Service’ is a contract which involves rendering of service along with transfer or deemed transfer of property in goods. For instance, if a builder constructs a building under a contract including the cost of materials, not only does he render the service but he also transfers the property in the material used such as bricks, steel, cement, etc. while rendering the service. Such services are distinct from contracts for sale of goods or contracts for rendering services and are known to commerce as a separate species of contracts. Such contracts became chargeable to service tax as ‘works contracts service’ w.e.f 1.6.2007 and there was no charge of service tax on such services prior to 01.06.2007 as held by the Supreme Court in COMMISSIONER, CENTRAL EXCISE & CUSTOMS VERSUS M/S LARSEN & TOUBRO LTD. AND OTHERS [2015 (8) TMI 749 - SUPREME COURT] - the demand of service tax on works contracts executed prior to 1.6.2007 under the head ‘commercial or industrial construction service’ cannot be sustained.
Demand for the period after 1.6.2007 - suppression of facts or not - time limitation - HELD THAT:- The appellant cannot claim exemption from service tax on the ground that its client was exempted under some provision of income tax. If it wants to claim exemption from service tax, it is its responsibility to show how it was covered by an exemption notification or exemption clause under the provisions of the service tax. Similarly, if it wants to claim exemption from income tax, it has to show how it is exempted under the laws of income tax. However, it is found from Annexure B(1) of the SCN that the amounts which it had received from these three organisations were received clearly beyond the normal period of limitation and hence any demand on this count is hit by limitation.
Construction of residential complexes - HELD THAT:- It is found that the demand for the normal period of limitation was not under “construction of residential complexes” but only under the head of ‘Works Contract Service’ and hence this submission is also irrelevant.
Composition scheme - demand raised on the gross amounts received without any abatement towards the value of the goods - HELD THAT:- The reason for not allowing abatement as recorded in paragraphs 44 and 45 of the impugned order is that the appellant had not opted for payment of service tax under Works Contract Composition scheme. In this factual matrix, when it is undisputed that goods were used in execution of the contracts and the value of the goods is not available, it will not be open to the department to charge service tax on the entire gross amounts received including the value of the good transferred. Service tax cannot be charged on the value of the goods sold or otherwise transferred as a part of the contract. It is found that even if the appellant had not opted for the composition scheme by submitting a letter in writing as required during the relevant period, if it is otherwise eligible for the benefit of the composition, it cannot be denied for the technical fault of not submitting a letter within time. Accordingly, the demand for the normal period of limitation under this head is confirmed allowing abatement under the Composition scheme.
The last submission on merits of the case is that the impugned order confirmed demands on the value of the free materials supplied by the clients of the appellant - HELD THAT:- It is found from the SCN that demands have been made on this account. It has been decided by the larger bench of this Tribunal in M/S BHAYANA BUILDERS (P) LTD. & OTHERS VERSUS CST, DELHI & OTHERS [2013 (9) TMI 294 - CESTAT NEW DELHI-LB] that the value of supplies made free of cost by the service recipient cannot be included in the taxable value for calculating service tax. This decision was upheld by the Supreme Court in COMMISSIONER OF SERVICE TAX ETC. VERSUS M/S. BHAYANA BUILDERS (P) LTD. ETC. [2018 (2) TMI 1325 - SUPREME COURT]. Therefore, the demand on this account needs to be set aside.
Appeal allowed in part.
-
2024 (4) TMI 680
Levy of service tax - works contract service - construction of a new building or a civil structure or a part thereof or a pipeline primarily for the purpose of commerce and industry - Boundary wall is a part of the building or is it a civil structure or a part of the building or civil structure? - Extended period of limitation - penalties - HELD THAT:- Admittedly, service tax was payable on the construction of a new building or a civil structure or a part thereof. The appellant’s contention is that boundary wall is not a part of the building nor is it a civil structure. This submission cannot be accepted. A boundary wall is invariably a part of the building or a civil structure. It needs to be noted that service tax was payable not only when the entire building or a civil structure is built but it was also payable when a part of it is built - the submission of the appellant that the boundary wall is not a part of the building and is also not a civil structure, cannot be agreed upon. Therefore, regarding the demand on merits, the issue is decided against appellant.
Extended period of Limitation - Suppression of facts or not - HELD THAT:- During investigation itself, the appellant agreed and paid the service tax. Had the appellant been discharging its obligations and filing ST 3 returns, it would have been the responsibility of the department to scrutinise them with the records and raise a demand. The appellant in this case neither disclosed the rendering of this service nor paid service tax on it nor filed the returns. This qualifies as suppression of facts with intent to evade payment. Therefore, the extended period of limitation was correctly invoked in this case.
Imposition of penalties under section 77 and 78 of the Finance Act - HELD THAT:- Whenever any service tax is not paid by reason of fraud or collusion or wilful misstatement or suppression of facts or violation of the provisions of the Act or Rules with an intent to evade payment of service tax, penalty under section 78 can be imposed. In other words, the same elements which make the extended period of limitation invokable also make the assessee liable to penalty under section 78 - Since it is already held against the appellant on the question of extended period of limitation, there are no reason to take a different view with respect to penalty under section 78. Section 77 is a general penalty for offences. Since the appellant had failed to pay self assess service tax correctly and pay it and file returns, we find the penalty of Rs. 10,000 on the appellant under section 77 is also just and fair.
The impugned order is upheld - Appeal dismissed.
-
2024 (4) TMI 679
Classification of service - Business Support Service or Renting of immovable property - appellant is an operator of individual or multiple cinemas screen at multiple complexes as owner/lessee having ownership/lease hold rights - HELD THAT:- There is no service as such which has been provided by the appellant to the distributors. The appellant has agreed for exhibiting the distributor’s film without any interference of the said distributors. The distributors had actually granted licence to exhibit the theatrical exihibition rights of the film in the lincesed theatre.
As far as the time and number of shows are concerned, the distributor has agreed for getting share in the Revenue collected from the sale of the tickets that to within 10 days of completion of every week to which it pertains. The agreement clarifies that it is the transfer of copyright by the distributor in favour of the appellant to the exclusion of all including the owner of the said copyright.
The issue is otherwise no more res-integra. Various decisions have clarified that Revenue sharing arrangement in itself does not necessarily imply provision of service, unless service provider and service recipient relationship is established - reliance can be placed in DELHI INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT P. LTD. & MUMBAI INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT P. LTD. VERSUS UNION OF INDIA & ORS. [2017 (2) TMI 775 - DELHI HIGH COURT] - there is otherwise nothing on record to establish the said relationship.
There are no reason to differ with the findings arrived at in the Order-in-Appeal, the same is accordingly upheld - appeal of Revenue dismissed.
-
2024 (4) TMI 678
Classification of service - Business Auxiliary Services or not - process of washing of coal - period 16.06.2005 to 31.03.2007 - HELD THAT:- The decision of the Tribunal in ARYAN ENERGY (P) LTD. VERSUS COMMR. OF CUS. & C. EX., HYDERABAD-I [2008 (5) TMI 248 - CESTAT BANGALORE], M/S SPECTRUM COAL AND POWER LTD VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, RAIPUR [2012 (9) TMI 24 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI] and M/S. ARYAN COAL BENEFICATIONS PVT. LTD. VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF SERVICE TAX NEW DELHI [2012 (9) TMI 205 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI] have consistently held that the activity of beneficiation of coal by the assessee is part of mining activity and, therefore, would be liable to service tax only w.e.f. 1.6.2007 and once it is established that the activity is mining, it cannot be taxed under the “Business Auxiliary Service” for the period prior to 1.6.2007.
It is found that it is settled by the judicial pronouncements that the activity of beneficiation/washing of coal is a taxable service in relation to mining of minerals only w.e.f. 1.6.2007 and, therefore, the Commissioner rightly decided that no demand can be made by the Department for the period prior to 01.06.2007 under the category of “Business Auxiliary Service”.
There are no reasons to differ from the settled law and which is squarely applicable in the facts of the present case - The impugned order is accordingly affirmed - appeal filed by the Revenue stands dismissed.
-
2024 (4) TMI 677
Classification of services - mining services or not - hiring pay loader and tipper/dumper for loading - HELD THAT:- The findings of Bombay High Court in the case of INDIAN NATIONAL SHIPOWNERS' ASSOCIATION VERSUS UNION OF INDIA [2009 (3) TMI 29 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT] have been quoted by the Adjudicating Authority and it has been held that the transportation of coal as performed by the Assessee herein on tippers/trucks upto siding has no direct/indirect nor any proximate relation with the mining of coal (mining activity).
The issue is no more res-integra, the authorities have rightly followed the judicial discipline while applying the ratio of the Hon’ble Supreme Court’s decision in COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE AND SERVICE TAX, RAIPUR VERSUS SINGH TRANSPORTERS [2017 (7) TMI 494 - SUPREME COURT]. Hence, there are no infirmity in the order under challenge.
The order under challenge is hereby upheld - the appeal filed by the department is dismissed.
-
2024 (4) TMI 676
Recovery of service tax alongwith interest and penalty - Business Auxiliary Service - the facts and the law and binding judicial precedents on the identical issue not properly appreciated - violation of principles of natural justice - Extended period of limitation - HELD THAT:- The identical issue has been considered by the Tribunal in the case of M/S S.R. MEDICAL AGENCIES VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, CHANDIGARH-II [2023 (8) TMI 1150 - CESTAT CHANDIGARH] and this Tribunal after considering all the submissions of both the parties has held This issue has been considered by various benches of the Tribunal and has consistently been held that the assessee is not liable to pay service tax under the category of ‘Business Auxiliary Service’.
The impugned order is not sustainable in law and therefore, the same is set aside - appeal allowed.
-
2024 (4) TMI 675
Levy of penalty upon both the appellants, being the Director/ Authorized Signatory in terms of Section 78A of Finance Act, 1994 - benefit of Section 124 (1) (b) of SVLDRS - HELD THAT:- Apparently and admittedly, it was the main co-noticee i.e Wisdom Guards Pvt. Ltd. who has been issued the discharge certificate (SVLDRS Form No. IV) under the SVLDRS, Scheme, 2019. There are no such provision in the scheme which may extend immunity to the other co-noticees because of the discharge certificate in favour of the one of the co-noticee. Hence, the said contentions of the appellant not agreed upon.
Coming to the another aspect of Section 78A of Finance Act to have been introduced only w.e.f. 10.05.2013, we hold, based upon the settled position of law, that all provisions of statute have to be given prospective effect unless and until, they are expressly made to apply retrospectively. Section 78A of the Act is perused. There is nothing in the Section to reflect that the section has to be applied retrospectively - the section can be invoked w.e.f. 10.05.2013. The period involved in the present appeal is 2011-2012 to 2013-2014. Hence, it is clear that the periods is pre as well as post the insertion of Section 78A in the impugned Act - there are no reason to extend any benefit of said provisions to the appellant.
Appeal allowed in part.
-
2024 (4) TMI 674
CENVAT Credit - non-payment of amount equivalent to 6% on the value of exempted services as required under Rule 6 (3) (i) of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 - HELD THAT:- In the present case, it is observed that, undisputedly entire Cenvat credit taken/availed by the appellant during the period under dispute, whether in respect of taxable service or exempted service, have been deposited along with interest well before the issuance of the show cause notices and got appropriated by the adjudicating authorities vide the impugned order. The law in this respect is settled that if credit originally availed is reversed subsequently it would amount to as if not credit has been awaited.
Support drawn from the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CHANDRAPUR MAGNET WIRES (P) LTD. VERSUS COLLECTOR OF C. EXCISE, NAGPUR [1995 (12) TMI 72 - SUPREME COURT]. It is observed that the Commissioner (Appeals) has considered the decision of this Tribunal as well as of Hon’ble Madras High Court which are based on the aforesaid decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court.
There is no infirmity in the order under challenge, the same is accordingly upheld - Appeal of Revenue is dismissed.
-
2024 (4) TMI 673
Recovery of short paid service tax alongwith interest and penalty - Valuation of Security Agency Service - inclusion of various charges like, accommodation, vehicle running and maintenance, Telephone, Stationary and other expenses, in the gross value for calculation of service tax liability - HELD THAT:- The principal Bench of the Tribunal recently in the case of SR. COMMANDANT CENTRAL INDUSTRIAL SECURITY FORCE (BHEL UNIT) BHARAT HEAVY ELECTRICALS LTD. VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, & CENTRAL EXCISE [2023 (4) TMI 608 - CESTAT NEW DELHI] while relying upon the another decision of the Tribunal in the case of M/S BHARAT COKING COAL LTD. VERSUS COMMR. OF CENTRAL EXCISE & S. TAX, DHANBAD [2021 (9) TMI 23 - CESTAT KOLKATA] held that Allahabad Bench of the Tribunal in the case of CENTRAL INDUSTRIAL SECURITY FORCE VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, C.E. & S.T., ALLAHABAD [2019 (1) TMI 1661 - CESTAT ALLAHABAD], has already settled the issue in favour of the appellant to hold that expenses incurred towards medical Services, vehicles, expenditure on Dog Squad, stationery expenses, telephone charges, expenditure incurred by the service recipient for accommodation provided to CISF etc are not includible.
There are no reason to differ from those findings. Findings otherwise stands acknowledged by the Department itself. Resultantly, the order under challenge has been wrongly confirmed the impugned demand in total ignorance of the above said decisions - the impugned order set aside - appeal allowed.
-
2024 (4) TMI 628
Valuation of service - works contract service - inclusion of cost of material (for which separate bill raised) in providing the service - inclusion on the ground that the service is classifiable under ‘works contract service’ and accordingly all the goods used for providing such ‘works contract service’ should be included in the gross value of the service under the composition scheme - HELD THAT:- As per the facts of the present case there are clear contracts between the appellant and the service recipient separately for sale of goods and for Erections, Commissioning and Installation services. Since there is a clear contract for supply of material and supply of services and in respect of the goods sale bills were issued by the appellant and VAT on the sale of goods were paid the transection of supply of goods is clearly and independently a transection of sale of goods which has no connection with the provision of service.
In the present case the contract of the service namely erection, commissioning, installation service being a pure service the same is not exigible to Sales Tax, VAT/CST etc. as per the law therefore the condition Number 2 above is also not applicable therefore in the present case being a service simpliciter as per the separate contract the same is not classifiable under works contract service. The appellant have admittedly paid the service tax on the erection, commissioning, and installation at the applicable rate of service tax therefore the allegation of the department that the appellant have not included the value of goods in the works contact service is incorrect.
This issue has been considered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, in BSNL v. Union of India [2006 (3) TMI 1 - SUPREME COURT], wherein it has held that works contracts involved a kind of service and sale at the same time. In such a case, the splitting of the service and supply was constitutionally permitted. Further, it has been held that if there is an instrument of contract which may be composite in form in any case and if the transaction in truth represents two distinct and separate contracts and is discernible as such, in that case it has become permissible to separate agreement to sale from the agreement to render service.
The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Imagic Creative Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Commercial Taxes [2008 (1) TMI 2 - SUPREME COURT] has categorically held that payments of VAT and service tax are mutually exclusive. Further, it was observed that even in case of indivisible contracts, it would be difficult to hold that the entire contract value be subjected to service tax or VAT.
Similarly in the case of Commissioner of Service Tax-V, Mumbai v. UFO Moviez India Ltd. [2022 (7) TMI 1064 - SUPREME COURT], the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that where a person has regularly paid sales tax on a particular transaction, there is no question of levying service tax on the same transaction.
In the present case undisputedly the appellant had manufactured and also purchased the goods from the independent supplier and sold to its customers therefore irrespective of whether the said goods were sold in transit or by way of high seas sale, when the provisions itself prescribes non-taxability of trading of goods, no service tax can be levied on the profit margin arising from such trading of goods.
Thus, no service tax can be demanded on the sale of goods or by way of including the value of goods in the service. Further as per the contract and the transaction made thereunder there is clear distinction between the provision of service and transaction of sale of goods therefore the service has been correctly classified under erection commissioning and installation service and paid the service tax correctly.
The impugned orders are set aside - appeal allowed.
-
2024 (4) TMI 627
Classification of service - Business Support services or not - service of delivery provided to some customers - Arranging transportation - The revenue contended that GTPL collected excess freight charges from customers compared to the amount paid to transporters, suggesting it as additional consideration for the goods sold - HELD THAT:- An identical issue has been decided in the case of PUSHPAK STEEL INDUSTRIES PVT LTD VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE & SERVICE TAX PUNE - III [2018 (10) TMI 84 - CESTAT MUMBAI] wherein it was held that Since transportation cost, incurred was in context with delivery of goods at the buyers premises, it cannot be said that such facility extended by the appellant should be considered as a taxable service, leviable to Service Tax under the category of 'business support service'. Further, the appellant, in the present case, had not supported the business of the buyers in any manner and arrangement of transportation was just to facilitate delivery of the duty paid excisable goods at the buyer's premises. Thus, the activities undertaken by the appellant, in our considered view, do not confirm to the definition of taxable service, for the purpose of levy of Service Tax thereon.
It is noticed that no specific case of the service being provided under the head of business support service has been made out. As observed in Order In Original there is no contract for provision of the business support service between GTPL and their buyers. Even the notice does not show that GTPL were engaged in other than simply organizing transportation of goods.
Relying on the decision of Tribunal in the case of Pushpak Steel Industry Private Limited, there are no merit in the appeal filed by revenue.
Appeal allowed.
-
2024 (4) TMI 561
SVLDRS - Benefit of the Amnesty Scheme opted - non-payment of service tax in respect of services rendered under the head of commercial training and coaching services - failure to make payment on account of technical glitch or not - HELD THAT:- Taking note of the report issued by the Assistant Director attached to the office of the Principal Additional Director General of Systems and Data Management GST and Central Excise, GST Bhavan, Chennai, the contention of the appellant regarding technical glitches of the system cannot be accepted - this is a case where the appellant who had applied for the benefit of the Amnesty Scheme was well aware of the strict time schedule that had to be adhered to for making payments under the Scheme. It clearly comes out through the affidavit of the appellant himself that he came to know of the SVLDRS-3 intimation only on 15.06.2020, which was well after the last date of 31.03.2020 for making payments as originally envisaged under the Scheme.
While the appellant apparently accessed the web portal of the SVLDRS on 29.06.2020, he does not appear to have attempted to make the payment envisaged since such details have not been captured by the system.
The terms of the Amnesty Scheme being of the nature of an exemption from the requirement to pay the actual tax due to the government, have to be considered strictly in favour of the revenue and against the assessee, and hence the appellant cannot be permitted to avail the benefit of the Scheme on the facts of the instant case - Appeal dismissed.
-
2024 (4) TMI 560
Refund of service tax paid - time limitation - Business Auxiliary Service or not - rejection of refund claim on the ground that the petitioner had filed the said application after one year, the statutory period prescribed under Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944 - principles of unjust enrichment.
Unjust Enrichment - HELD THAT:- The Revenue took up this matter before the CESTAT against the order passed in Ext. P2 by the Commissioner (Appeals). The Tribunal vide the order dated 19.01.2018 in Ext. P3, remanded the matter back to the original authority to examine the record of the petitioner afresh and pass a fresh order. On remand, the 2nd respondent/original authority had considered the issue afresh and issued order dated 25.03.2021 in Ext. P5. The 2nd respondent had found that the payment of Rs. 15,66,169/- was made under protest. However, the petitioner did not produce any convincing document to prove that the tax paid by him of Rs. 15,66,169/- had not been passed on to the consumer of services ie., the respective distilleries and therefore, the petitioner had been held not to be entitled for claiming refund in absence of the evidence to prove that the petitioner had not passed on the tax liability on the distilleries, and he had paid an amount of Rs. 15,6,169/- from the own pocket.
Time Limitation - 2nd respondent found that out of the said amount, Rs. 2,78,100/- was paid by the petitioner on 04.01.2007 and the application was made after one year, which would be barred under Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944 - HELD THAT:- The question is of evidence and not on of the law. Whether the petitioner had passed on the tax liability on the distilleries, the consumers of the services of the petitioner is a matter of fact and evidence, and this Court cannot go into this question in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. In respect of the amount of Rs. 2,78,100/-, the original authority had categorically held that the application had been filed after one year of prescribed limitation period, and in respect of the other amount, he had failed to prove that the said tax liability had not been passed on to the consumers of the petitioner service. Therefore, this Court cannot examine the issue, which is only a question of fact and evidence and not of the law.
This Court find no substance in this writ petition. Thus, the writ petition is hereby dismissed.
-
2024 (4) TMI 559
Reversal of CENVAT Credit - exempted service rendered as trading activity - whether the option exercised by the appellant by intimating to the Department under Rule 6(3A) dated 24.05.2011 and 02.05.2012 is legal and valid? - HELD THAT:- It is found that in the various cases, the issue for consideration was whether the demand can be sustained even when the appellant has not complied with the requirement of intimating the Department about availing the option under Rule 6(3A) of the CCR, 2004. In all the decisions, the appellant has reversed the credit attributable to the exempted services and it has been held by the Tribunal consistently that the said requirement is only a procedural requirement and the demand cannot be confirmed for such procedural lapse.
Further, in the present case, the appellant is on a better footing because he has exercised the option by submitting intimation letters under Rule 6(3A) dated 24.05.2011 and 02.05.2012, but the Department has not considered the option exercised by the appellant simply on the ground that the option cannot be operative retrospectively from 01.04.2011 and 01.04.2012 respectively.
The impugned order is not sustainable - Appeal allowed.
-
2024 (4) TMI 558
Refund of service tax paid - Construction of Residential Complexes Service - rejection on the grounds of non-submission of the required documents despite seeking time for submission of the same - HELD THAT:- Commissioner (Appeals) in the impugned order has upheld the order of the original authority on the ground that no documentary proof to satisfy that their service/activity falls within the purview of Board Circular 96/2007-ST dated 23.08.2007 was submitted. The contention of the appellant that their service would fall under ‘Works Contract’ was also not considered by Commissioner (Appeals) as they have not taken any registration under ‘Works Contract’ and discharged appropriate service tax.
In this case the appellant contends that they are not in the activity of ‘Construction of Residential Complexes’ to attract levy of service tax. They have contended that they are purchasing land, building flats and selling them to the customers. They are in the business of buying and selling of flats and hence they are not liable for service tax.Nonetheless they have registered and paid service tax, realizing that they ought not to have paid service tax they have filed a refund claim for the service tax paid. However, since the required documents as proof of payment of service tax as well as non-collection of same from the buyers was not produced by way of documents, their refund claim was rejected by the original authority as well as by the first appellate authority.
The required documents are not brought on record even in the appeal before this Tribunal and the appellant has not appeared for hearing on the last three occasions - the appeal filed by the appellant is dismissed.
-
2024 (4) TMI 534
Seeking permission to withdraw these Civil Appeals with liberty to seek remedies in accordance with law - Levy of service tax - Business Auxiliary service or not - commission paid by the appellants to the commission agents - reverse charge mechanism - Revenue neutrality - HELD THAT:- The Civil Appeals are dismissed as withdrawn.
........
|
