Sep 022014
 

Visit this link to view full text:…..

Abstract……..(Plain text)……

Service Tax – Dated:- 2-9-2014 – CENVAT Credit – Appellant, authorized dealer of Hero Honda two wheelers, availed credit of tax paid on GTA service, insura………………

Visit this link to view full text:…..

Sep 022014
 

Visit this link to view full text:…..

Abstract……..(Plain text)……

Service Tax – Dated:- 2-9-2014 – GTA Services – no justification in the view of Commissioner (Appeals) that in as much as it was the assessee who was required to p………………

Visit this link to view full text:…..

Sep 022014
 

Visit this link to view full text:…..

Abstract……..(Plain text)……

Central Excise – Dated:- 2-9-2014 – CENVAT credit – fabrication of capital goods – in the absence of dispute of receipt of capital goods in the appellants factory, their are duty paid ………………

Visit this link to view full text:…..

Sep 022014
 

Visit this link to view full text:…..

Abstract……..(Plain text)……

Customs – Dated:- 2-9-2014 – Applicant imported Premier Flex 3000, Polyester Reinforced Black Finish, Polyester Reinforced Natural Granule Fini………………

Visit this link to view full text:…..

Sep 022014
 

Visit this link to view full text:…..

Abstract……..(Plain text)……

Companies Law – Dated:- 2-9-2014 – Arbitration award – Once the Arbitrator has applied his mind to the matter before him, the Court cannot reappraise th………………

Visit this link to view full text:…..

Sep 022014
 

Visit this link to view full text:…..

Abstract……..(Plain text)……

Income Tax – Dated:- 2-9-2014 – Reopening of assessment u/s 147 – There has to be some tangible material on the basis of which a reason to belief………………

Visit this link to view full text:…..

Sep 022014
 

Visit this link to view full text:…..

Abstract……..(Plain text)……

Income Tax – Dated:- 2-9-2014 – Computation of book profits u/s 115JA – MAT – the assessee has made the provision for the bad debt but without written………………

Visit this link to view full text:…..

Sep 022014
 

Visit this link to view full text:…..

Abstract……..(Plain text)……

Income Tax – Dated:- 2-9-2014 – TDS deduction u/s 194C @ 2% or u/s 194I – on comparison of the two explanations added to Sections 194-I and 194-C of the Act, it was never the intention of the l………………

Visit this link to view full text:…..

Sep 022014
 

Visit this link to view full text:…..

Abstract……..(Plain text)……

Income Tax – Dated:- 2-9-2014 – TDS deducted by insurance company on interest on compensation received whereas TDS was already deducted on lump sum amount – petition………………

Visit this link to view full text:…..

Sep 022014
 

Visit this link to view full text:…..

Abstract……..(Plain text)……

Income Tax – Dated:- 2-9-2014 – Claim of benefit u/s 10(23C)(iiiab) – Activity educational or not – the assessee itself need not impart ………………

Visit this link to view full text:…..

Sep 022014
 

Visit this link to view full text:…..

Abstract……..(Plain text)……

Mrs JAYASHREE TAKALKAR Versus COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, PUNE-III – Service Tax – CESTAT MUMBAI – Tri – Rent a cab service – Penalty u/s 76 & 78 – Held that:- Earlier decision of the Tribunal in the case of Kuldeep Singh Gill (2010 (4) TMI 283 – PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT) is in favour of the assessee, therefore we find that it is not a case for imposition of any penalty under Sections 77 and 78 of the Finance Act. The penalties imposed under the impugned order are set aside, otherwise the demand with interest is upheld – Decided in favour of assessee. – 2014 (9) TMI 79 – CESTAT MUMBAI – TMI – Appeal No.ST/182/2007-Mum – - Dated:- 18-6-2014 – S S Kang and P S Pruthi, JJ. For the Appellant : Shri Sarang Joshi, Consultant For the Respondent : Shri B S Meena, Additional Commissioner (AR) JUDGEMENT Per: S S Kang: Heard both sides. 2. The appellant filed this appeal against the impugned order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals). In the present case, the demand is confirmed on the ground that the appellant provided taxable service of rent-a-cab during the period in dispute. 3. The appellant was providing motor cabs/cars to Pune Municipal Corporation and others on rent. The appellant was not registered with the Revenue authorities. A show cause notice was issued demanding service tax with interest. The adjudicating authority confirmed the demand of ₹ 9,43,318/- with interest and also imposed penalties under Sections 76 and 78 of the Finance Act. Undisputed facts of the case are that 30 Maruti vans were being rented out by the appellant to their customers. The appellant heav………………

Visit this link to view full text:…..

Sep 022014
 

Visit this link to view full text:…..

Abstract……..(Plain text)……

IIT, MUMBAI Versus COMMISSIONER OF SERVICE TAX – Service Tax – CESTAT MUMBAI – Tri – Waiver of pre-deposit of service tax – scientific and technical consultancy service – option as provided under rule 6 (3) (ii) of the Cenvat Credit Rules not filed – Held that:- Applicants were reversing proportionate credit which is in respect of non taxable service as per the provisions of Rule 6 (3) (ii) of the Cenvat Credit Rules in view of the earlier adjudication order dated 31.3.2011. The applicant has made out a case for waiver of pre-deposit of the dues. In the facts and circumstances of this case, the pre-deposit of the dues is waived and recovery thereof stayed for hearing of the appeals – Stay granted. – 2014 (9) TMI 78 – CESTAT MUMBAI – TMI – ST/86069 & 86070/14 – - Dated:- 9-6-2014 – S S Kang And P S Pruthi, JJ. For the Appellant : Mr R G Sheth, Adv. For the Respondent : Mr S Dewalwar, Additional Commissioner (AR) PER : S S Kang 1. Heard both sides. 2. Common issue is involved. Therefore, the applications are taken up together. 3. The applicants filed the applications for waiver of pre-deposit of service tax of ₹ 94,23,398/-, interest and penalties. 4. The demand is confirmed on the ground that the applicants are providing taxable services such as scientific and technical consultancy service and also providing non taxable service such as education. The case of the Revenue is that the applicants availed credit in respect of common input services which are used in or in relation to providing taxable service as well as non taxable service. 5. The contention of the applicant is that for the earlier period the demand was made on the same ground and the adjudicating authority vide order dated 31.3.2011 granted benefit of Option (ii) of Rule 6 (3) of the Cenvat Credit Rules even the applicant had not followed t………………

Visit this link to view full text:…..

Sep 022014
 

Visit this link to view full text:…..

Abstract……..(Plain text)……

M/s TARAN ANGAD TRADERS (P) LTD Versus COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, INDORE – Service Tax – CESTAT NEW DELHI – Tri – CENVAT Credit – Appellant, authorized dealer of Hero Honda two wheelers, availed credit of tax paid on GTA service, insurance service and telephone services; utilized it for the output service of Authorised Service Station – Revenue viewed the credit inadmissible, adjudicated demand for recovery of irregular credit along with interest and penalty, upheld by Commissioner (Appeals) and agitated herein – Held that:- issue involved in this case stands decided in favour of the Appellant by the Tribunal judgement in case of M/s. Badrika Motors (P) Ltd. reported in [2014 (1) TMI 316 - CESTAT NEW DELHI], which in turn, is based on the Tribunals judgements in the cases of Sri Venkanna Motors Pvt. Ltd. (2009 (3) TMI 877 – CESTAT BANGALORE) and CCE, Tirupathi Vs. Shariff Motors (2009 (3) TMI 155 – CESTAT, BANGLORE). In view of this, the impugned order is not sustainable – Decided in favour of assessee. – 2014 (9) TMI 77 – CESTAT NEW DELHI – TMI – ST/839/2008-CU(DB) – FINAL ORDER NO.52447/2014 – Dated:- 23-5-2014 – G Raghuram And Rakesh Kumar, JJ. For the Appellant : Shri P K Ram, Adv. For the Respondent : Shri Amresh Jain, DR PER : Rakesh Kumar The appellant are an Authorised Service Station and also a dealer of M/s. Hero Honda Motors and accordingly, are also engaged in the business of purchase and sales of new motorcycles and part thereof besides, servicing of motorcycles by maintaining an Authorised Service Station from the same premises. The period of dispute in this case is from 1.10.2004 to 30.09.2005. The point of dispute is as to whether the cenvat credit of service tax paid on the GTA service, insurance service and telephone services availed could be used for payment of service tax on the output service of Authorised Service Station. The department being of the view that these input services mainly used for purchasing of the two wheelers and their storage and sale, the same cannot be treated as input services for servicing of the two wheelers and accordingly, the appellant would not be eligible for cenvat credit in respect of these services. On this basis, the jurisdictional Dy. Commissioner vide order-in-original dated 6.10.2006 confirmed cenvat credit demand of ₹ 1,30,790/- along with interest and besides this, imposed penalty of ₹ 2,000/- on them under Rule 15 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. On appeal being filed to the Commissioner (Appeals), this order of the Dy. Commissioner was confirmed by the Commissioner (Appeals) vide order-in-appeal dated 10.09.2008. Against this order of the Commissioner (Appeals), ………………

Visit this link to view full text:…..

Sep 022014
 

Visit this link to view full text:…..

Abstract……..(Plain text)……

LOMBARDINI INDIA PVT LTD Versus COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, AURANGABAD – Service Tax – CESTAT MUMBAI – Tri – Goods transport agency service – payment of service tax using cenvat credit – Held that:- Panchamahal Steel Ltd. vs. CCE & ST, Vadodara reported in, whereby the Tribunal, after relying upon the decision of the Honble Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of CCE vs. Nahar Industrial Enterprises Ltd. reported in [2010 (5) TMI 608 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT], decision of the Honble Himachal Pradesh High Court in the case of CCE vs. Auro Spinning Mills reported in [2011 (7) TMI 849 - Himachal Pradesh High Court] and the decision of Honble Delhi High Court in the case of CST vs. Hero Honda Motors Ltd. reported in [2012 (12) TMI 734 - DELHI HIGH COURT], held in favour of the assessee. The period in dispute is prior to the amendment on 1.3.2008 to the provisions of Rule 2(p) of the Cenvat Credit Rules. – Decided in favour of assessee. – 2014 (9) TMI 76 – CESTAT MUMBAI – TMI – ST/414, 433/11-Mum – - Dated:- 21-5-2014 – S S Kang, J. For the Appellant : Shri Badri Narayanan, Adv. For the Respondent : Shri D D Joshi, Superintendent (AR) PER : S S Kang The Revenue as well as the assessee filed appeals against the same impugned order. 2. The period in dispute is January 2005 to August 2007. The issue is whether an assessee who is not the actual service provider but discharged the service tax lia………………

Visit this link to view full text:…..

Sep 022014
 

Visit this link to view full text:…..

Abstract……..(Plain text)……

M/s MUNICIPAL CORPORATION Versus COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE AND SERVICE TAX, RAIPUR – Service Tax – CESTAT NEW DELHI – Tri – Waiver of pre deposit – Renting of immovable property – Failure to obtain registration – Failure to file return and remit tax – Held that:- Since the appellant Municipal Corporation had rented out its properties to poor and under-privileged sections of the society, in discharge of a Constitutional obligation flowing from the provisions of Article 243W (introduced by the 74th Amendment of the Constitution), it can be considered to have provided any taxable service liable to the levy of tax by the Union Legislature. Since the service provided by the appellant Municipal Corporation do not fall within the scope of the limitations on Union Legislative Power specified in Article 289 of the Constitution. However, the appellant appears to have an eminently arguable case with regard to the legitimacy of invoking the extended period of limitation, in the facts and circumstances of the case. – Partial stay granted. – 2014 (9) TMI 75 – CESTAT NEW DELHI – TMI – 59970 of 2013 – Stay Order No. 51197/2014 – Dated:- 13-3-2014 – G Raghuram And Rakesh Kumar, JJ. For the Appellant : Shri Gaurav Gupta, CA For the Respondent : Ms Suchitra Sharma, Authorized Representative (Jt. CDR) PER : G Raghuram Show cause notice was issued on 17/10/12 and proceedings were initiated culminating in the adjudication order dated 28/06/2013 confirming service tax demand of ₹ 70,08,745/- apart from interest and penalties, as specified, on the ground that the petitioner, the Municipal Corporation, Raipur had provided renting of immovable property service; failed to obtain registration; to file returns and remit the service tax due, during the periods 2007-2008 and 2011-2012. The tax liability relatable to the period 2011-2012, w………………

Visit this link to view full text:…..