Records 1 to 20 of 1744

Service Tax - Appellants were doing the repair job as authorized service centre of M/s. SIEL - Appellants were getting a fixed amount of Rs.35,000/- per month plus some reimbursement of certain other expenses from SIEL for free repairs done under warranty period on behalf of the manufacturer i.e. SIEL – bona fide belief of non-liability to pay service tax – tax along with interest paid immediately on pointed out by dept. – commission rightly invoked section 80 to reduce penalty

Service Tax - Appellant receiving consulting engineering services from the service provider located outside India - rate of service tax was 5% prior to 14.5.03 & it was enhanced to 8% from 14.5.03 and further enhanced to 10% w.e.f. 10.9.04 - clarification of the Board can not considered to be authorizing the application of rate prevailing at the time of billing/payment - hold that in absence of specific provision, the rate of tax applicable shall be the rate prevailing on the date of rendering the services.

Service Tax - Respondents are paying commission to foreign based commission agents in respect of goods being exported. The foreign based commission agent is booking order on behalf of the appellant and goods were supplied from India – period of dispute is 9.7.04 to 31.3.05 - impugned services became “taxable service” w.e.f. 1.1.05 and recipient of such service could not be held liable for paying service tax prior to 1.1.05 – matter is remanded back to Commissioner (Appeals) to decide afresh

Service Tax - Commissioner (Appeals) has set aside the order-in-original imposing the penalties on the respondents on the ground that the appellants has discharged the entire service tax liability before 30/10/2004 - Commissioner (Appeals) has correctly followed the law as has been laid down by the various decision of the Tribunal - any reason for interference in the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) for such miniscule amount of Rs.2,651/- which was paid subsequently

Service Tax - Delay in payment of the service tax - Doubt and confusion as regards their liability to pay service tax - no mala fide intention on their part - assessee proves that there was a reasonable cause for failure to deposit the dues or filing returns, no penalty shall be leviable in terms of Section 76, 77, 78 or Section 79 - appellate authority having admitted that there was no mala fide on the part of the appellant, should have set aside the entire amount of penalty in stead of reducing the same.

Service Tax - Commission confirmed demand on ground that the appellants are providing the service of C/F agent - Commissioner (Appeals) relied upon the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Prabhat Zarda Factory (India) Ltd. (supra) which has already been over-ruled by the Larger Bench of the Tribunal in the case of L&T Ltd. - fit case for reconsideration by the adjudicating authority

Service Tax - Refund claim was rejected in OIO on the ground that in the retrospective amendment to the Finance Act, vide service tax liability has to be discharged by the receiver of the services of C/F agents – It is noticed that the co-ordinate Bench of the Tribunal in Appeal No.ST/45/01 had rejected the Appeal filed by assessee - decision/judgment of the co-ordinate Bench applies in all fours in this case also, as it is in respect of the very same order-in-appeal – hence impugned appeal is dismissed

Service Tax - Commissioner (Appeals) has dismissed the appeal for non-compliance with the provisions of Section 35F of Central Excise Act. We find that the issue is, prima-facie, covered by various Tribunal’s decisions laying down that charitable institutions providing security services would not attract tax inasmuch as they are not commercial concerns. As Commissioner (Appeals) has not decided the issue on merits, we set aside the impugned order and remand the appeal to him

Service Tax - Penalty imposed on the findings that the service tax was paid six months late, though they were registered with the central excise authorities – in view of decision of Larger Bench in the case of M/s. ETA Engineering Ltd. laying down that each day’s delay attracts penalty of Rs.100/- per day, held that the appellate authority has already reduced the penalty and no further reduction is called for – appeal of assessee is rejected

Service Tax - Applicant company is a Public Sector Undertaking. Accordingly, they are required to produce a certificate of clearance from the committee of Secretaries in terms of decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of ONGC Vs Collector of Customs, Kolkata - Since enough time has passed and no such certificate has been submitted, we close the matter(s) for statistical purpose. The applicant is at liberty to pray for re-opening of the matter on production of the clearance certificate

Service Tax - Penalty of Rs.10,000/- imposed under Section 77 and of Rs.1 lakh imposed under Section 76 of the Finance Act, 1994 stands challenged in the present appeal - held that the said penalty stands imposed for late filing of ST-3 returns and for late deposit of tax. There is almost a delay of around 1400-1500 days. Commissioner (Appeals) has already reduced penalty under the provisions of Section 76 to Rs.1 lakh - no reason to further reduce the same

Service Tax - Commissioner (A) held that the consideration for unloading of iron & steel materials received from RINL plant at railway siding, loading, unloading of materials at yard is not to be added to the gross amount for the purpose of service tax as consignment agent – since there is one contract for providing the service of consignment agent, respondent is liable to pay tax on the gross amount received as consignment agent - impugned order is not sustainable and set aside – demand also not time-barred

Service Tax - Commissioner (Appeals) held that respondent being recipient of consulting service who is residing outside India and having no office in India, is not liable to pay service tax for the period 1998-99 to 2002-03 - held that the taxable service provided by non-resident from outside India who does not have any office in India, having been specified as ‘taxable service’ w.e.f. 1.1.05 and recipient of such service could not be held liable to pay service tax prior to 1.1.05

Service Tax - Demand confirmed on the ground that the appellants are providing the service of ‘Business of Auxiliary Service’ –Tribunal in the case of Chambal Motors (P) Ltd., held that as per the terms of agreement, the appellants are providing Business Auxiliary Service - In the present case the appellant entered into agreement with banks on same issues as in the case of Chambal Motors (P) Ltd. - In view of said decision, we find no infirmity in the impugned order. Appeal of assessee is dismissed.

Service Tax - Commissioner (Appeals) held that for the period 16.8.02 to 31.12.04, the respondent received taxable service from non-resident who has no office in India & is not liable for service tax – in view of case of Hindustan Zinc Ltd. vs CCE, held that the taxable service provided by non-resident from outside India who does not have any office in India, having been specified as ‘taxable service’ w.e.f. 1.1.05 and recipient of such service could not be held liable for paying service tax prior to 1.1.05

Service Tax - There is no evidence to show that the buses, in question, are tourist vehicles as provided u/s 2(43) of the Motor Vehicles Act. In similar situation, the Tribunal after considering the decision of the Hon’ble Madras High Court held that tourist vehicle to be as per provisions of ‘Motor Vehicles Act and Rules and when vehicle is not covered by the description of ‘tourist vehicle’ and not run as such, the person concerned is not covered under the scope of tour operator

Service Tax - Appellant, Exporter – services of foreign middlemen used in procuring export orders - Revenue contend that during the period from July, 04 to Nov, 05, Appellant, is liable to pay the service tax - in cases where taxable service is provided by a non-resident who does not have any office in India and is received by a person in India, the service tax liability can be fastened on the service recipient in India only w.e.f. 1.1.05 - matter remanded to the Commissioner for requantification

Service Tax - Revenue filed this application for stay of operation of the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) - Commissioner (Appeals) following the decision of the Tribunal in the case of M/s South East Corporation vs C.C. & C. Ex.,Cochin, hold that respondents are engaged in the sale of prepaid mobile connections/recharge coupons for M/s BSNL - no reason for stay of operation of the order of the Commissioner (Appeals). Accordingly, the application is rejected.

Service Tax - Applicant has deputed “low grade employees” electrician and computer operator to their sister concern for doing work and recovered the amount attributable to their salaries and allowances and the said amount is sought to be treated as service charges received in connection with the management consultancy services. Prima facie, we hold that this may not fall under the category of management consultancy service. Accordingly, stay is granted

Service Tax - Demand of service tax and penalty for the period 1998-2003 in respect of management consultant services & consulting engineers services received from a foreign firm - Larger Bench of the Tribunal has held that no service tax can be demanded from the recipient of the services for the period prior to 1.1.2005 in the case of Hindustan Zinc Ltd. - Following this decision, we allow the present appeal