1. Services:
Mandap Keeper/Club or Association Service :
1.1 Ranchi Club Ltd vs. CCCE&ST, Ranchi Zone 2012 (26) STR 401 (Jhar.)
The appellant in this case incorporated as company and formed on principle of mutuality. The department sought to levy service tax on services utilized by members of club viz. Mandap keeper etc. The High Court held that, in view of mutuality, if club provides any service to its members, it is not a service by one legal entity to another, and it is not liable to service tax. It is further held that, explanation appended to section 65 of FA, 1994 that, “taxable service includes any taxable service provided or to be provided by any unincorporated association or body of persons to a member” found to be similar to explanation I to Section 2(n) of Madras General Sales Tax Act, 1959 including within definition of sale any transfer of property by club to its members, considering Apex Court decision in Young Men’s Indian Association 1970 (1) SCC 462 had held that, supply of preparations by club to its members was not a sale as there was no transfer of property from one to another, and even though club had distinct legal entity, it was acting only as an agent for its members.
It is also held that, sale entails transfer of property whereas service does not however both transactions require existence of two parties.
Clearing & Forwarding Agency Service :
1.2 Vaman Pharma Pvt. Ltd. vs. CCE Bangalore 2012 (26) STR 424 (Tri-Bang.)
The Tribunal in this case held that, agreement has to be considered in light of recitals reflecting intention of parties. On the facts of the case it is held that, expression “to receive, store and distribute and forward” in impugned agreement had to be construed to mean “to handle, clear and forward” as intended by the contracting parties and therefore service provided by the appellant are covered under C&F Agency service.
It is further held that, decisions cannot be blindly applied to case in hand and every case has to be decided on its own factual matrix.
1.3 Gudwin Logistics vs.CCE Vadodara 2012 (26) STR 443 (Tri-Ahmd.)
The appellant in this case engaged in facilitating clearances of export/import cargo, freight booking, employment of labourer, co-ordination with shipping lines with CHA. The lower appellate authorities held activities carried out as clearing and forwarding service. The Tribunal held that, definition has been incorrectly interpreted and the appellant is not engaged in category of work indicated in CBEC Circular. The appellant neither receiving, storing or dispatching good nor receive any commission or remuneration for receipts, storage or dispatch, hence not covered under C&F Agency service.
Management, Maintenance or Repair Service:
1.4 In Re: MAS-GMR Aerospace Engineering Co. Ltd. 2012 (26) STR 468 (AAR)
The Authority for Advance Ruling held that, service tax is applicable on Maintenance, Repair and Overhauling (MRO) facility to domestic as well as foreign aviation entities. It is further held that, MRO services rendered to overseas entity for domestic airlines, who operate domestic flights to India, domestic airlines who operate international flights and foreign entities who operate international flights, will not qualify as export of service under ESR, 2005.
Business Support Service:
1.5 Green Chanel Travel Services P. Ltd. vs. CST, Ahmedabad 2012 (26) STR 527 (Tri-Ahmd)
The Tribunal in this case held that, amount received as income/commission charged by the service provider for rendering his service of assistance for obtaining passport and Visa to individuals, is not taxable under BSS and matter is covered under CBEC Circular No. 137/6/2011-ST dated 20/01/2012.
Banking and Other Financial Service:
1.6 Housing & Dev. Corpn. Ltd (Hudco) vs. CST, Ahmedabad 2012 (26) STR 531 (Tri-Ahmd)
The Tribunal in this case held that, Reset charges and pre-payment charges can be considered as cost incurred by borrower towards value added services like restructuring of loan and pre-payment of loans and hence liable to service tax. Method of calculating the charges based on outstanding loan amount and interest rate prevalent at that time will not change the head of income from service charges to interest and it has no bearing on the nature of service provided.
Erection, Commissioning & Installation Service:
1.7 Kaushal Solar Equip. Pvt. Ltd. vs. CST, Pune-III 2012 (26) STR 561 (Tri-Mumbai)
In this case, assessee provided services of Erection, Commissioning & Installation service for Solar system through dealers. They have not collected charges separately for the same. The Tribunal held that, appellant is liable to service tax for installation activity even though charges are not collected separately and matter remanded for quantification of tax.
2. Interest/Penalties/Others:
2.1 Jageti & Co. vs. CST, Ahmedabad 2012 (26) STR 415 (Tri-Ahmd.)
In this case, the refund claim has been rejected due to non-indication of service tax separately in invoice and service tax has been shown as revenue expenditure. The Tribunal held that, assessee failed to indicate service tax exempted cannot be conclusive of collection of service tax from customers. Only when tax is payable, the question of determination of tax included in gross amount arise. Since the appellant has followed Cash accounting method, fault cannot be found in showing payment of tax as expenditure and also tax paid before SCN cannot be said to be subsequently collected.
3. CENVAT Credit:
3.1 CCE, Vs. Auro Spinning Mills 2012 (26) STR 413 (HP)
The High Court in this case held that, manufacturer can take benefit of cenvat credit which it had obtained on the manufacturing side for discharging the Service tax liability on account of GTA service rendered.
3.2 CCE, Raipur Vs. Topsworth Steels Pvt. Ltd. 2012 (26) STR 420 (Tri-Del)
The Tribunal in this case held that, courier service and premium of insurance in respect of car are related to activity of business and hence credit is admissible.
3.3 CCE, Jaipur-II Vs. Rajasthan Spinning & Weaving Mills Ltd. 2012 (26) STR 466 (Tri-Del)
The assessee in this case, paid service tax on GTA through debit entry in cenvat credit account and then taken credit of the same and utilized for payment of excise duty. The department sought to deny the credit of service tax paid on GTA on the ground that, there is no valid document for claiming credit. The Tribunal held that, details mentioned in lorry receipts provided all required information and there is no infirmity in granting credit.
3.4 CCE, Bangalore-II Vs. Millipore India Pvt. Ltd. 2012 (26) STR 514 (Kar)
The High in this case observed that, landscaping of factory garden falls within concept of modernization, renovation, repair etc. of office premises. Further, credit rating of industry is dependent on how factory is maintained inside and outside the premises and environmental law expects employer to keep factory without contravention thereof. Also the concept of social responsibility and statutory obligation of employer to maintain their factory in eco friendly manner are also relevant. In that view, it has been held that, all the said services are “activities relating to business” of manufacturer of excisable goods and service tax paid on them form cost of final products, and assessee is entitled to take credit thereof.
It is further held that, medical and personal accident policy, group personal accident policy, insurance, personal accident policy, personal vehicle service and catering service are “activities relating to business” and they are part of salaries of employees and elements of costs of production covered under CAS-4.
3.5 Meghmani Organics Ltd. vs. CCE, Ahmedabad 2012 (26) STR 555 (Tri-Ahmd.)
The Tribunal in this case allowed cenvat credit of service tax paid on Courier services used for sending documents, cheques and demand drafts as the said services are input services for activities relating to business.
No comments:
Post a Comment