CA Sandesh Mundra
Consult Us For Construction
Service Tax – December 2011
SYNOPSIS OF NOTIFICATIONS, CIRCULARS & LETTERS
1) Vide Notification No. 2/2011 Dated 13/12/2011 Registration number shall be granted in 3 days CBEC has specified following documents that are required to be submitted by the person who has made an application for registration under Rule 4(1) of the Rules ibid:
(a) Copy of Permanent Account Number (PAN)
(b) Proof of Residence
(c) Constitution of the Applicant.
(d) Power of Attorney in respect of authorised person (s).
It is further stated that the above documents must be submitted to the concerned authority within a period of 15 days from the date of filing of the application for registration. Failure to do so would lead to rejection of the registration application. It is also clarified that the time limit of seven days from date of receipt of application or intimation under Rule 4(5A), within which the registration is to be granted by the Superintendent of Central Excise or Service Tax, as referred to in Rule 4(5) shall be reckoned from the date the application for registration is complete in all respects.
2) Vide Circular No. 149/18/2011-ST Dated 16/12/2011, Government has proposed to introduce a simplified scheme for electronic refund of service tax to exporters, on the lines of duty drawback. With the introduction of this new scheme, exporters now have a choice: either they can opt for electronic refund through ICES system, which is based on the ‘schedule of rates’ or they can opt for refund on the basis of documents, by approaching the Central Excise/Service Tax formations.
1) In the case of RNS Infrastructure Ltd v. CCE (Bang – CESTAT) it has been held that
- Matter to be set aside for reconsideration when department contended that the benefit of 67% abatement notification should be denied to the assessee as it had first taken all the input credits. The fact that input credits were subsequently reversed was not recorded in the findings.
- Assessee constructed raw material water pond. As it did not pay service tax on the contention that no service tax is payable on works contracts between 1-4-2006 to 31-1-2007. Since the point was not raised before the adjudicating authority, matter to be remanded for reconsideration.
2) In the case of Sachin Impex v. CCE it has been held by Mumbai CESTAT that Cenvat Credit availed on Air Travel Agent was required by assessee for upgrading its products and keeping product update, impugned credit was admissible to the assessee.
3) In the case of Comm. Of Service Tax, Ahmedabad v. Shilpa Constructions P Ltd it has been held by CESTAT, Ahmedabad Bench that
- Whether the road is being constructed for public utility or as part of commercial complex is not relevant for allowing the exemption. Only thing to be seen is that the value of road job should be separately stated if it part of a single work order.
4) In the case of CST v. Shrinandnagar - IV Co.op Housing Soc Ltd, Ahmedabad Bench of CESTAT has held that a Co-operative Housing Society is not liable to pay service tax on allotments to its members as the activity was for and on behalf of the members. The contractor who had rendered the service to society was liable to pay service tax.