Home Case Index All Cases Service Tax 2010 2010 2010 (7) Service Tax - 2010 (7) This

Law	-- All -- GST Income Tax Benami Property Customs Corporate Laws Securities / SEBI Insolvency & Bankruptcy FEMA PMLA Service Tax Central Excise CST, VAT & Sales Tax Wealth tax Indian Laws
Court	-- Any -- Supreme Court SC Orders / Highlights High Court Appellate Tribunal Tribunal Appellate authority for Advance Ruling Advance Ruling Authority National Financial Reporting Authority Competition Commission of India ANTI-PROFITEERING AUTHORITY Commission Central Government Board DISTRICT/ SESSIONS Court Commissioner / Appellate Authority Other
Citation	--Year-- 2024 2023 2022 2021 2020 2019 2018 2017 2016 2015 2014 2013 2012 2011 2010 2009 2008 2007 2006 2005 2004 2003 2002 2001 2000 1999 1998 1997 1996 1995 1994 1993 1992 1991 1990 1989 1988 1987 1986 1985 1984 1983 1982 1981 1980 1979 1978 1977 1976 1975 1974 1973 1972 1971 1970 1969 1968 1967 1966 1965 1964 1963 1962 1961 1960 1959 1958 1957 1956 1955 1954 1953 1952 1951 1950 Upto 1949 - -Volume- 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 -
Landmark	Nil - N/A Referred in >= 3 Cases Referred in >= 4 Cases Referred in >= 5 Cases Referred in >= 10 Cases Referred in >= 15 Cases Referred in >= 25 Cases Referred in >= 50 Cases Referred in >= 100 Cases
Order by	TMI Citation Date of Decision

Advanced Search Options

Service Tax - Case Laws

Showing 41 to 60 of 123 Records

• 2010 (7) TMI 427 - CESTAT, MUMBAI
  

  Penalty – GTA service - appellant not challenged the service tax confirmed and the appeal was only against the confirmation of penalties - provisions of section 73(3) of the Finance Act, 1994 applicable to the case of the appellant as there was no suppression, collusion, willful misstatement or fraud has been alleged on the appellant and in that circumstances, benefit of section 80 of the Finance Act, 1994 to be given to the appellant – penalty waived

  ---

• 2010 (7) TMI 424 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI
  

  Mandap keeper’s service – assessee declared certain amount in course of survey under section 133A of Income-tax Act, 1961 – Department treated as consideration towards taxable services provided in relation to Mandap Keeper - balance sheet nowhere discloses that the amount disclosed to Income-tax authority was attributable to consideration in relation to Mandap Keeper - no evidence produced by revenue to place their stand – Appeal dismissed

  ---

• 2010 (7) TMI 423 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
  

  Penalty – suppression of value of taxable service - payment of service tax with interest and penalty in pursuance of the show-cause notice issued - assessee filed a NIL return and after service of show-cause notice, assessee realized mistake and paid tax with interest and penalty – assessee not a bona fide omission on the part of a housewife - a lady who wilfully evaded service tax and suppression of fact - question of law answered in favour of the revenue and against the assessee

  When once she filed a NIL return and after service of show-cause notice, she realised her mistake and paid tax with interest and penalty, that by itself did not constitute sufficient reason to give her exemption from payment of penalty under section 78 of the Act. This aspect of the matter has been completely missed by the Tribunal which seems to have been unduly carried away by the fact that assessee is a lady. The Tribunal failed to notice that people who want to indulge in such malpractices, would purchase properties or carry on business in the names of housewives as their front and carry on the activities. Therefore, authorities need not unduly worry about the persons in whose names the vehicle stand, but they have to look at the substance of the case and find out if it is a case of wilful evasion or bona fide error.

  ---

• 2010 (7) TMI 421 - CESTAT, CHENNAI
  

  Storage and warehousing service - assesses of the storage of buffer stock of sugar as per the Government’s direction and releasing of the same as and when fresh stock to be kept as buffer stock arises and for which the Government pays some amount to the assessees – not amounts to provision of storage and warehousing service by the assessee - Nawanshahr Co-operative Sugar Mills v. CCE (2008 -TMI - 30098 - CESTAT NEW DELHI)

  ---

• 2010 (7) TMI 417 - CESTAT, CHENNAI
  

  Cenvat credit – input services used for both in manufacture of exempted as well as dutiable final products and for providing both taxable and exempted services – Demand of service tax along with interest and penalty – input credit for some services, rejected - assessees contend that these services were utilised only in connection with the manufacture of dutiable final products/for providing taxable services and were not common for both dutiable as well as exempted products and taxable and exempted services – Matter remanded

  ---

• 2010 (7) TMI 414 - CESTAT, BANGALORE
  

  Recovery of service tax – Assessee was providing service packing service and transport of goods by road service – It failed to register itself and to pay service tax – Adjudicating authority imposed penalties under section 76, 77 and 78 – Assessee paid service tax along with interest before issuance of SCN – Provision of section 73(3) brought into play and penalty, set aside

  ---

• 2010 (7) TMI 412 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
  

  Waiver of pre-deposit – modification of stay order - Single Judge passed an interim order directing the respondents not to include, supply of free material to the petitioner without imposing any condition - litigation where the provision of exemption has been challenged as violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India, there is no scope of staying the operation of the exemption or granting exemption on a modified term in the field of collection of revenue - benefit of extension of time for depositing the amount on the basis of the prayer made by his own counsel, should not be permitted to dispute the correctness of the order of modification - appellant not permitted to challenge the order

  ---

• 2010 (7) TMI 403 - CESTAT, CHENNAI
  

  Penalty - excess service tax paid - service tax was paid in excess during the month which has been adjusted towards the service tax liability for the subsequent months – service tax paid tax in advance - As such, they cannot be penalized under Section 76 of the Finance Act, 1994 which applies to cases of failure to pay service tax. Hence the penalty imposed under Section 76 is set aside

  ---

• 2010 (7) TMI 400 - CESTAT, CHENNAI
  

  Penalty – delay in payment of service tax - Commissioner (Appeals) has set aside the penalty imposed on the appellants under Section 76 of the Finance Act, 1994 and has upheld the penalty imposed under Section 78 of the Act - Section 78 applies where there is fraud, collusion, mis-statement or suppression - Delayed payment of service tax, therefore, does not come under the ambit of Section 78 – Held that: - penalty upheld under Section 78 by the lower appellate authority requires to be set aside - Section 76 would have been more appropriate for imposition of penalty in this case which covers cases of failure to pay service tax - authority has set aside the penalty imposed under Section 76 and the department has not come in appeal against this order

  ---

• 2010 (7) TMI 389 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI
  

  Waiver of pre-deposit – Scientific or Technical Consultancy Service - applicants are developing the software and their keeping upgradation of the same which is well covered under the ‘Information Technology Service’ for which the applicants are paying Service tax w.e.f. 16-5-2008 when the impugned service came into the net of Service tax - demand pertains to the period prior to that - demand is not sustainable

  ---

• 2010 (7) TMI 387 - CESTAT, BANGALORE
  

  Appeal to Appellant Tribunal – Assessee was engaged in mining of iron ores – Deputy Commissioner confirmed demand of service tax on assessee but did not imposed any penalty – Commissioner revised said order under section 84 and imposed penalties under section 76, 77 and 78 on ground that assessee had failed to show that there was reasonable for its failure to pay service tax in due time - in relation to the issue pertaining to tax liability of the assessee, there was no merger between the Dy. Commissioner’s decision and the Commissioner’s order and consequently it is not open to the assessee to agitate the issue before this Tribunal

  ---

• 2010 (7) TMI 382 - CESTAT, BANGALORE
  

  Waiver of pre-deposit – cenvat credit of service tax - technical know how received from the foreign company - Applicant has discharged service tax liability as a recipient of the services from the foreign company – Held that: - applicant is eligible to avail Cenvat credit - application for waiver of pre-deposit of amounts involved is allowed

  ---

• 2010 (7) TMI 381 - CESTAT, CHENNAI
  

  Cenvat credit - assessees paid service tax by mistake, payment was made even though the service was not taxable at that point of time and they subsequently took credit of the tax paid - assessees also had not disputed that they were not entitled to credit but only argued that the demand is barred by limitation as there was no suppression on their part and therefore, notice should have been issued within the normal period of limitation - They submit that at the time of taking the credit of tax paid by mistake, they were under the bona fide belief that they were eligible to credit - extended period of limitation invoked against the assessees – demand sustainable, appeal dismissed

  ---

• 2010 (7) TMI 376 - CESTAT, CHENNAI
  

  Valuation – abetment - materials such as patches etc. consumed during the course of carrying out the activity of retreading of tyres - assessees were paying sales tax on the materials consumed - set aside the impugned order and allow the appeal

  ---

• 2010 (7) TMI 373 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI
  

  Adjudication order – non application of mind - Rule 9(2) apparently gives discretion to the adjudication authority to ascertain whether tax due on inputs and input service has actually been paid and such input or input service has actually be used or is to be used in the manufacture of final products or in providing output service - if satisfied in this regard, to give necessary concession to the assessee in relation to any procedural irregularity in relation to maintenance of documents on the basis of which cenvat credit can be availed – Held that: - liability of the assessee under Cenvat Credit Rules, the adjudicating authority is expected to apply its mind to this aspect of the matter and thereafter to arrive at the final conclusion about liability of the assessee in this regard - order is liable to be set aside and the matter to be remanded to the adjudicating authority

  ---

• 2010 (7) TMI 367 - CESTAT, AHMEDABAD
  

  Waiver of pre-deposit - part of the demand is related to the stamping and lamination manufactured as per the design and drawing requirement of the customer and sold to the customer for which they have separately charged the customers - contention of the appellant is that the amount so charged does not alter the nature of transaction, in all eventuality, it is for the sale of stamping and lamination – Held that: - payment has been received in convertible foreign exchange will not be liable to service tax, is prima facie, in favour of the appellant - limitation of time is concerned, the show-cause notice is undisputedly issued on11-4-2007and the period covered in the demand is1-10-2001to31-3-2002 – pre-deposit waived

  ---

• 2010 (7) TMI 364 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI
  

  Order of Commissioner (Appeals) – Bias - Commissioner (Appeals) has pre-judged the issue to agree with the learned Adjudicating Authority – Order assailed as mechanical concurring with adjudicating authority – bias notice and matter remanded to Commissioner (Appeals) to pass reasoned and speaking order

  ---

• 2010 (7) TMI 355 - CESTAT, BANGALORE
  

  Waiver of pre-deposit - Club or Association Service - Accepting the plea of limitation, the impugned order modified the order of the Original Authority by restructuring their liability to Service Tax for a period of one year before the issue of Show Cause Notice - Commissioner (Appeals) had directed the lower authority to determine the liability in accordance with his directions, the appellants are yet to receive any communication from the Original Authority – application rejected as pre-mature with liberty to the appellant to file an application when they are informed of their liabilities in terms of the impugned order

  ---

• 2010 (7) TMI 351 - CESTAT, BANGALORE
  

  Waiver of pre-deposit – cenvat credit of service tax - services of ‘Commission Agent’ for procuring orders for sale of goods - lower authority found that the impugned credit was not admissible in terms of Rule 2(l) of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 – credit denied on the ground that services received after manufacture and clearance of goods - definition of input service, the same would include service tax paid on sales promotion - waiver pre-deposit

  ---

• 2010 (7) TMI 335 - CESTAT, BANGALORE
  

  Appellant is engaged in the manufacture of various electrical equipments such as transformers, circuit breakers, machinery and parts thereof - Appellant also executes turnkey contracts for supply, erection, installation and commissioning of power transmission and distribution systems - Commissioner of Central Excise and Service tax stated that appellant is liable to pay service tax on the taxable services provided - accordingly confirm the demand of service tax - interest at the applicable rate as per the provisions of Section 75 of the Finance Act, 1994 - imposed penalty under section 78 - Revenue submission that in the context of Turnkey and EPC contracts, the contract would typically comprise of design, engineering, procurement and construction of a facility and provide for start-up procedures, performance tests, creation of operating manuals and training of personnel which would definitely apply only to composite contract for supply of goods and services - Held that: - service rendered by the Company had not been included under the definition of consulting engineer prior to 2006 as it stood under Section 65(13) - service rendered by the assessee - Company during relevant period cannot be brought under the category of consulting engineer - assessee falls under Section 65(105)(zzzza) Explanation (a) and (e) - under the definition of works contract, but the revenue has no power to call upon the assessee to pay service tax, interest and penalty therein, since the provisions of law has come into force with effect from 1-6-2007 - disposed off the appeal on the question of the same being covered under the category of works contract - appeal is dismissed

  ---

1234567