Manufacturer - Exporter allowed CENVAT Credit of all services used upto the port

when assessee goes out of modvat scheme or when company is closed, refund claim can be made in cash

As per the Cenvat Credit Rules and as per the Manual, there is no restriction for utilization of Cenvat credit by the manufacturing unit towards payment of Service Tax as service tax provider

Larger Bench: (a) Whether, in the facts of these cases, the additional amount paid by the buyer towards price of the goods in terms of the supplementary invoice issued by the assessee after removal of the goods can be considered to be part of the 'transaction value' under Section 4 of the Central Excise Act;
(b) Whether the payment of duty under the supplementary invoice by the assessee is covered by sub-section (2B) of Section 11A of the Act;
(c) Whether, on the amount of duty paid under the supplementary invoice, interest is leviable under Section 11AB from the first date of the month succeeding the month in which duty was paid in the first instance in terms of the original invoice.

The liability to pay income tax arising out of income from the services rendered is on the appellant. The TDS amount deducted was payable only on behalf of the appellant to the Income Tax Department. We do not find any justification to exclude the said amount from the gross amount for the purpose of determining the service tax

Amendment of Section 11AB would not extinguish liability of all the assessees/ manufacturers in whose case, demands arose for the period prior to 11.05.2001 because of invocation of proviso relating to demands arising as a result of short levy/non-levy because of fraud/collusion/mis-statement etc
the issue has to be considered by Larger Bench of the Tribunal.  Accordingly, the Registry is directed to place this matter before the Hon’ble President for constituting Larger Bench to decide whether interest on duty/cenvat credit demanded by applying proviso to Section 11A or Section 11A read with Cenvat Credit Rules, or under Rule 57(I), is payable under Section 11AB prior to 11.05.2001

The Notification 52/03 exempts only basic customs duty and additional customs duty imposed under Section 3 of the Customs Tariff Act. The Special Additional Customs have been imposed under Section 128 of the Finance Act, 2003. The exemption Notification requires to be strictly interpreted. Extending exemption to additional customs duty imposed under Section 128 of the Finance Act, 2003 has the effect of enlarging the Notification No.52/03 by expanding the list of duties that are exempted under the said Notification. Such an interpretation is not warranted.

The mobile phones are all standing in the name of the company and used by the employees in relation to the work only and incidentally it can be used for personal work but that by itself is no ground to deny the credit

Amount of service tax paid on mobile phones services is admissible as credit when use of mobile phones for personal purposes cannot be ruled out

The telephone service received on the mobile phones of the respondents, which were operated by their staff in connection with the business of the company, was 'input service' and accordingly the service tax paid thereon was available as CENVAT credit to the respondents

In the absence of any contrary evidence that the aircraft was not used for business activities, in the current jet age, the use of such aircraft is to be considered as bare requisite for business activities. Any service tax paid on the services rendered by any authority on such an aircraft needs to be allowed as credit to the assessee

An ocean separates a manager from a management consultant, a performer from an advisor or a coach. That ocean exists in the present case also. where the agreement conferred operational autonomy and responsibility on the contracted party, the relationship is not one of consultancy. The ratio of that decision covers the present dispute also. There is no management consultancy in the facts of the present case and the demand is clearly beyond the scope of the statute.

There was scope for difference in interpretation and hence for entertaining a view that there was no levy of tax and therefore, the demand of tax for the extended period of limitation would not be applicable. We also noted that the issue involved in this case is the interpretation of the provision of the Finance Act and the penalties are not warranted. Accordingly, the demand of tax for the normal period of limitation is upheld. Penalties are set aside.

Larger Bench: prior to 13-7-2006, refund, which became due on final assessment is to be made without the claim being submitted by the assessee and therefore, did not attract the provision of unjust enrichment 

Larger Bench: credit is available on the plastic crates used as material handling equipment in the factory premises as capital goods and also as input

Larger Bench: goods which were not available for confiscation (except where the goods were provisionally released after seizure) could not be confiscated and redemption fine cannot be imposed under Rule 25 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 (read with Section 34 of the Central Excise Act) in lieu of confiscation of excisable goods not available for confiscation

there is nothing on record to infer that the Respondent had purchased the freely transferable DEPB scrip otherwise in a bona fide manner and utilised the same towards debit/exemption of duty. There is no allegation that the Respondent has colluded with the exporter, who obtained the DEPB scrips by fraudulent means . there is no allegation that the importer has not paid the duty by reason of collusion or any wilful mis-statement or suppression of facts, therefore, the demand of duty on the basis of proviso to sub-section (1) of Section 28 of the Act is not sustainable.

Whether CENVAT credit can be denied to the respondents for the period in dispute on the ground that there is shortage of inputs covered by relevant invoices vis-a-vis weighment slips- the issue requires to be resolved by a Larger Bench

Section 66A was enacted on 18.4.2006. The material period in the case before me is prior to 16.6.2005. Therefore, in view of the ratio of the judgment of the Hon’ble High Court of Bombay, the appeals filed by the Revenue seeking to restore demands on Indian companies for tax on services received from persons abroad are without merit.

movement of limestone and rejects in the mining area undertaken by the appellants are covered by the entry “mining of mineral, oil, gas” and that the said activity cannot be taxed under “cargo handling service” for the period prior to introduction of the levy under the category “mining of mineral, oil, gas” on 1 June 2007
the contract is for a series of activities starting from mining to delivery of the lime stone to the designated place of the client. The findings of the Commissioner (Appeals) that the loading is incidental to mining and transportation, appears reasonable. We feel that the respondent cannot be considered as an agent in the context of rendering the service of cargo handling. The cargo handling, even if taken as a separate service rendered, the same is rendered to the respondent himself in completing the entire work assigned to the respondent by the contract.

Manufacturer is eligible to avail input stage credit of the Service tax amount paid by the service provider of Canteen Services, Rent-a-Cab Services and on the Group Health Insurance Services.

Rule-2(l) of Cenvat Credit Rules does not require that service has to be rendered at the factory of the manufacturer for the purpose of eligibility for service tax credit. Therefore the stand of the revenue that since the service was provided at the buyer's premises credit is not admissible cannot be accepted. What has to be examined is whether the service provided is in or in relation to manufacture.

Credit of service tax paid on Medical and personal accident policy, Group personal accident policy, Insurance, Personal accident policy, Personal vehicle services, Landscaping of factory garden &  Catering bills admissible

Larger Bench: The definition of “input services” has to be interpreted in the light of the requirements of business and it cannot be read restrictively so as to confine only up to the factory or up to the depot of manufacturers.
The services availed by a manufacturer for outward transportation of final products from the place of removal should be treated as an input service in terms of Rule 2(l)(ii) of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 and thereby enabling the manufacturer to take credit of the service tax paid on the value of such services.

The Adjudicating Authority has rightly disallowed the quantity of naptha used for generation of electricity was sold/supplied to joint ventures and vendors

credit of service tax paid for telephone services availed through the staff of the assessees using mobile phones or land line phones at their residences is admissible as input service credit

credits related to service tax incurred for the use of mobile phones is admissible when there was no dispute that such use was for official purpose

whether CENVAT credit can be denied to the respondents for the period in dispute on the ground that there is shortage of inputs covered by relevant invoices vis-a-vis weighment slips.- the issue requires to be resolved by a Larger Bench.

Whether the credit can be availed after a lapse of 3 to 7 years of receipts of inputs in the factory. Even though, the rule say that the credit may be taken immediately, it is true that no outer time limit has been prescribed.
When the law is settled on the issue, there is no justification to deny the credit on the ground that it is availed after a long time. In any case, the Cenvat Credit Rules have not prescribed any outer time limit.

Larger Bench: In respect of a 100% EOU availing sales tax exemption, for determining the excise duty payable based on aggregate value of Customs duty, the element of SAD should be taken into account.

No reversal of Credit required by manufacturers in case of supplies to SEZ Developer during past period–the SEZ Act, 2005 provides for the exemption of supplies made to a developer. Moreover, in our view, the amendment to Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 should be taken to be clarificatory in nature as the word “substituted” has been used.

On perusal of the sub-rule (2) of Rule 226 (sic) (Rule 26) of the Central Excise Rules, 2002, I find that imposition of penalty on a person who issues invoices without delivery of goods or abates in making such invoice, would be applicable from insertion of the said sub-rule

Whether goods which have been re-imported and cleared availing the benefit of Notification No. 94/96-Cus. have to be held as having suffered additional customs duty leviable under Section 3 of Customs Tariff Act and therefore are leviable to SAD leviable under Section 3A of Customs Tariff Act or not?

appellants are entitled to avail 100% credit of Education Cess on the goods supplied to them by a 100% EOU

CDMA WLL telephones in dispute are Cellular Phones eligible to the benefit of exemption in terms of sr.264 of the table to the Notification No.6/2002-CE dated 1.3.02 and Notification No.21/2002-Cus dated 1.3.02 as per sr.no.320 of the Table thereto and Notification No.21/2005-Cus dated 1.3.05

place of performance of service is decisive for determining event of taxability as well as incidence of tax. The appellant appears to have performed service in India for ultimate consumption thereof in India by its clients/customers in India. The service is destined to exhaust in India and extinct soon after performance thereof. Post performance liability only remains to be discharged by foreign principal through the appellant in India. Thus the beneficiaries of services were located in India for ultimate consumption of the service provided in India

notarized certified copy of bill of entry for imports through courier agent is duly covered for availment of Cenvat credit.

the doctrine of unjust enrichment is not applicable in the matter of redemption fine and penalty