1.1 Tehri Pulp and Paper Ltd. vs. CCE,
Meerut-I, 2007 (8) STR 453 (Tri-Delhi.)
In this case, the scope of services provided by
the appellant was limited to procurement of orders. They were
acting as commission agent as well as supervising transportation,
ensuring execution of orders and pursuing payment. The Tribunal
held that services provided by the appellant come within the ambit
of Business Auxiliary service and not under Clearing and
Forwarding Agent Service.
1.2 Wigan & Leigh College (India) Ltd. vs.
JCST, Hyderabad, 2007 (8) STR 475 (Tri-Bang.)
In the present case, the appellant was
imparting skills to the trainees to enable them to seek employment
or undertake self-employment. They claimed exemption under
Notification No. 9/2003 available to Vocational Training
Institute. The department denied the exemption on the ground that
institute was not registered with AICTE. The Tribunal held that
benefit of notification cannot be denied by reading things/words
not present in the notification.
1.3 Karnataka State Beverages Corpn. Ltd. vs. CST, Bangalore,
2007 (8) STR 481 (Tri-Bang.)
The appellant a corporation established for
distribution of liquor. They have purchased liquor from
manufacturers, stored it in hired storage bases/godowns, and
thereafter sold to various wholesalers holding appropriate
licenses. They have collected demurrage fees from manufacturers in
case stock of liquor has not been lifted within the specified
period. The Revenue sought to levy tax on demurrage fees received
under Storage & Warehousing services. The Tribunal held that
demurrage is not a charge for storage of goods as the ownership of
goods vested in appellant themselves. It is further held that, the
fact that the appellant recorded the collected charges as ‘storage
charges’ would alone be not a proper reason for treating them as
storage charges in view of the decisions of the Apex Court’s
holding that the substance of a transaction would prevail over the
form.
1.4 Thermax Limited vs. CCE, Pune-I, 2007
(8) STR 487 (Tri-Mumbai)
The appellant in this case a manufacturer of
industrial boilers, in certain cases supplied the goods on lease
basis on account of financial constraints of such customers. The
have only collected interest on unpaid amount of credit and not
charged any amount on account of lease management fees, processing
fees, or documentation charges etc. The department alleged that
interest on loan would form part of value of taxable service. On
the facts of the case the Tribunal held as under:
-
The inclusion of
interest element in the value of taxable services vide Ministry
of Finance Circular No. BII/1/2001-TRU dated 9-7-2001 is open to
question, since the element of rendering any service for
recovering interest is absent. Interest is compensation fixed by
an agreement or allowed by law for use or detention of money or
for loss of money by one who is entitled for its use. Interest
cannot be considered as consideration for rendering any service.
-
Appellant paid
sales tax on goods supplied to various customers on lease basis
as the same involved transfer of right to use goods. Service tax
is not leviable when sales tax is paid.
-
Explanation added
to section 67 providing ‘interest on loan’ not to form part of
value of taxable service is to be treated as clarificatory in
nature w.e.f. 16-8-2002.
1.4 ITW India Limited vs. CCEC, 2007 (8) STR
490 (Tri-Kolkata)
In this case, the Tribunal held that expression
‘packing of cargo’ appearing in definition of Cargo Handling
Service is wide enough to cover activities such as unitizing,
strapping, packaging or packing of goods into cargo for subsequent
movement by trucks and/or rail.
1.5 Shabeer Travels vs. CCCEST (Appeals),
Kochi 2007 (8) STR 494 (Tri-Bang)
The appellant in this case was engaged as agent
for booking bus tickets and contended that their activity was
covered under Travel Agent Service and not under Business
Auxiliary Service. The Tribunal held that activity is covered
under Travel Agent service and since the appellant was not put to
notice under Travel Agent service in SCN, service tax cannot be
collected without issuing a proper show cause notice though
liability for part period exists.
1.6 Nandini Warehousing Corporation vs. CCE,
Belgaum 2007 (8) STR 511 (Tri-Bang)
The Tribunal in this case after relying on
decision in Sangamitra Services Agency vs. CCE, 2006 (1) STR 278
held that godown rent, establishment expenses, incentives, STD
call charges to be excluded from taxable value of clearing and
forwarding agents services.
1.7 Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. vs. CCE,
Patna 2007 (8) STR 527 (Tri-Kolkata)
The Revenue sought to levy tax on services or
activities performed by one part of the appellant company for
another part. The Tribunal held that since appellant is not
rendering service to any other person outside the company, no
service tax is payable in view of decision in Precot Mills Ltd
2006 (2) STR 495.
1.8 BPL Mobile Cellular Ltd. vs. CCE (ST),
Coimbatore 2007 (8) STR 546 (Tri-Chennai)
The appellant in this case sold prepaid SIM
cards to dealers/distributors against payment of price below MRP,
which in turn sold by the said dealers/distributors to subscribers
at MRP. The appellant have not charged any extra amount to
dealers/distributors. The Tribunal held that where law prescribes
value of taxable service to be the gross amount charged by service
provider, service tax can be levied on that amount only.
1.9 Martin Lottery Agencies Ltd. vs. UOI
2007 (8) STR 561 (Sikkim)
The appellant in this case was engaged in
purchase of lottery tickets from State Government and subsequent
sale thereof. The High Court after relying on Supreme Court's
decision in Sunrise Associates vs. Govt. of NCT Delhi 2006 (5) SCC
603 wherein it was held that Lottery tickets are actionable claims
and not goods, held that if the lottery tickets are not goods, the
petitioners cannot be said to be rendering any service in relation
to promotion or marketing or sale of their clients goods.
1.10 Institute of Banking Personnel
Selection vs. CST, Mumbai 2007 (8) STR 579 (Tri-Mumbai)
The appellant a non-commercial concern was
engaged in activity of conducting examinations for recruitment of
clerks, officers and specialist officers in banks, financial
institutions and other organizations. The Tribunal held that mere
charging of fees will not alter the position that the appellant is
not a commercial institute. It is further held that, charitable
organization is a organization that does not declare dividend or
distribute surplus/profits to its shareholders, trustees and/or
members, but ploughs back the surplus for the purpose of an object
of the organization, if the object thereof is of charitable
nature.
3.1 CST, New Delhi vs. Stic Travels Pvt.
Ltd. 2007 (8) STR 495 (Tri-Del.)
The Tribunal in this case allowed Cenvat credit
of service tax paid on mobile phones used by the staff of assessee
for providing output service.
3.2 Rajhans Metals (P) Ltd. vs. CCE, Rajkot
2007 (8) STR 498 (Tri-Ahmd.)
The appellant in this case claimed Cenvat
credit of service tax paid on erection, commissioning and
installation of windmills for generation of electricity away from
factory premises. They have surrendered the electricity generated
to the grid and equivalent quantum of electricity is withdrawn in
the factory from grid. The Tribunal held that services used at the
site of windmills cannot be held as input services by the factory
located far away from the windmills. Further, electricity is
non-excisable product Cenvat credit is not available even at
premises of windmills.
3.3 CCE, Goa vs. Essel Pro-Pack Ltd. 2007
(8) STR 609 (Tri-Mumbai)
The question came before consideration of
Tribunal was whether TR-6 challan is a valid duty paying document
for claiming credit when the Revenue failed to mention as to what
was specified document for availing credit during the relevant
time? The Tribunal held that it is not the case of Revenue that
service tax was not paid by the assessee or they are otherwise not
entitled to the credit, therefore TR-6 challan has to be
considered as a proper document for claiming Cenvat credit.
