|
Advanced Search Options
Service Tax - Case Laws
Showing 81 to 100 of 123 Records
-
2010 (7) TMI 262 - CESTAT, MUMBAI
Cenvat Credit – irregular availment - It is not disputed that the appellants have paid the Service Tax on its activity under "Management Consultant". The authorities seek to deny credit of Service Tax taken by the appellants on the ground that the activity was not excisable to Service Tax, the same being specifically excluded under sub-section 108 of the Section 65 of the Finance Act, 1994 – Held that: - As the respondents had paid the Service Tax and taken credit on the basis of valid documents, its eligibility to such credit cannot be questioned on the basis that the assessment of the service by the Department at the end of the service provider was incorrect – pre deposited waived
-
2010 (7) TMI 255 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
Concurrent levy of penalty u/s 76 and 78 - Held that: - the fact that penalty has been levied under section 78 could be taken into account for levying or not levying penalty under section 76 of the Act. In such situation, even if reasoning given by the appellate authority that if penalty under section 78 of the Act was imposed, penalty under section 76 of the Act could never be imposed may not be correct, the appellate authority was within its jurisdiction not to levy penalty under section 76 of the Act having regard to the fact that penalty equal to service tax had already been imposed under section 78 of the Act - This thinking was also in consonance with the amendment now incorporated though the said amendment may not have been applicable at the relevant time
-
2010 (7) TMI 252 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
Credit of Service tax on removal of excisable goods- Assessee purchased goods, paid excise duty on goods and service tax on transportation. Availed credit of Excise duty and service tax, afterwards returned the goods and reversed the credit of excise duty. The Revenue ordered the reversal of credit of service tax also and imposed a penalty. The Tribual set aside the order- there is no provision for reversal of credit of service tax on return of goods. High court upheld the decision.
It is not possible to assume any intention or governing purpose of the statute more than what is stated in the plain language. Words cannot be added or substituted so as to give a particular meaning. Reference can be made to the observations of a Constitution Bench of Hon'ble the Supreme Court in Mathuram Agrwal v. State of Madhya Pradesh, (1999 -TMI - 78693 - Supreme Court of India)
-
2010 (7) TMI 250 - CESTAT, AHMEDABAD
GTA services - Appellants utilized credit of service tax - what ever was required to be paid towards duty as per the order of original adjudicating authority was paid even before impugned order was passed in their favour - appeal filed by the revenue is rejected.
-
2010 (7) TMI 248 - CESTAT, MUMBAI
Waiver of penalty - under the head “Picking & Cleaning Expenses” on which the service tax has not been paid - after issuance of the show-cause notice, the appellant paid the service tax along with the interest - penalties under sections 76, 77 and 78 of the Finance Act, 1994 imposed - appellant being a small businessman and was not having any margin of profit in their business and was not aware of the service tax provisions - the benefit of section 80 of the Finance Act is to be given to the appellant as service tax being a new levy of tax – Held that: - penalty demand has been waived.
-
2010 (7) TMI 246 - CESTAT, CHENNAI
Payment of Service Tax - Assessee contended that said demand was raised on amount shown as 'receivable' in balance sheet whereas it had already discharged service tax on amount realized. Held that - The question of penal action against the assessees is also to be considered afresh after working out tax liability. The impugned order is set aside and the appeal is allowed by way of remand.
-
2010 (7) TMI 244 - CESTAT, AHMEDABAD
Advertising service - selling of space for advertisement amounted to taxable service - appellant has already deposited the amount - treating the same as sufficient for the purposes of stay condition of pre-deposit of balance amount of tax and allows the stay petition.
-
2010 (7) TMI 241 - CESTAT, CHENNAI
Reverse Charges - Service tax demand on Intellectual Property Services received from abroad by the assessees in India has been confirmed for the period up to 31-3-2005. Held that - in the light of the various decisions, the service tax liability in their case arises only with effect from 18-4-2006. Thus the entire demand and penalty are not sustainable.
-
2010 (7) TMI 240 - CESTAT, AHMEDABAD
Charge of Service Tax - The appellant is engaged in providing security services is duly registered with the department. Payment of service tax of Rs. 12,468 stands confirmed against the appellant on the ground that with the change of service tax with effect from 18-4-2006 they were supposed to pay service tax at the higher rate whereas the tax stands paid by adopting the earlier lower rate. Held that - matter was remanded to Commissioner (Appeals) to decide afresh.
-
2010 (7) TMI 234 - CESTAT, CHENNAI
Penalty - Appellant challenge the penalty u/s 76 and 78. Held that - penalty u/s 76 was to be set aside as section 76 and 78 are mutually exclusive. Since the assessee had not paid service tax on total turnover during relevant period, assessee was guilty of suppression and penalty u/s 78 had rightly been imposed on it.
-
2010 (7) TMI 232 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI
Cenvat Credit - The original authority denied the credit of Rs. 3,19,302 and order recovery of the same along with interest and imposed equal amount as penalty. Commissioner (Appeals) partly allowed the appeal. The assessee contended that substantial part of the demand relates to Service Tax paid on insurance premium which was alleged to be relating to cars. The Service Tax credit taken relating to insurance of cars was to the tune of about Rs. 27,000 only and rest of the credit relates to other insurance services. Held that - order of Commissioner (Appeals) insofar as same related to denial of credit and imposition of equal amount of penalty was to be set aside and matter was to be remanded to original authority for re consider claim of assessee.
-
2010 (7) TMI 229 - CESTAT, CHENNAI
Reverse Charges - Service tax demand on Intellectual Property Services received from abroad by the assessees in India has been confirmed for the period up to 31-3-2005. Held that - in the light of the various decisions, the service tax liability in their case arises only with effect from 18-4-2006. Thus the entire demand and penalty are not sustainable.
-
2010 (7) TMI 225 - CESTAT, AHMEDABAD
Charge of Service Tax - The appellant is engaged in providing security services is duly registered with the department. Payment of service tax of Rs. 12,468 stands confirmed against the appellant on the ground that with the change of service tax with effect from 18-4-2006 they were supposed to pay service tax at the higher rate whereas the tax stands paid by adopting the earlier lower rate. Held that - matter was remanded to Commissioner (Appeals) to decide afresh.
-
2010 (7) TMI 224 - CESTAT, CHENNAI
Authorized Service Station - The issue in dispute in the present appeals is whether service tax is leviable on 'free after-sales service' which the department considers is in-built in the dealer's margin. Tribunal in assessee's own case held that said service was not taxable. Held that - impugned order of Commissioner (Appeals) setting aside impugned demand was to be upheld.
-
2010 (7) TMI 213 - CESTAT, AHMEDABAD
Penalty - The challenge in the present appeal is only to penalties imposed upon under sections 76 and 77 of the Finance Act. The penalties stand imposed upon him for late filing of returns and for late deposit of service tax. Commissioner (Appeals) confirm the penalty. Held that - since Commissioner (Appeals) had not given any findings on malafide intention of assessee, impugned order was to be set aside.
-
2010 (7) TMI 207 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Stay - appeal against the order of tribunal granting stay after directing the parties to deposit 3 crores - issue was service tax on security charges - HC extended the time to comply the order of CESTAT but did not give any further relief
-
2010 (7) TMI 203 - CESTAT, AHMEDABAD
Stay – Rent a cab service - appellants were providing services and are not paying Service tax was found after search of premises of the appellant was conducted in the year 2005. It was also found during the search that appellants had collected Service tax from their customers but did not deposit the same. Further, before issue of show cause notice Service tax amount was deposited. Interest not deposited even after five years from search. Held that – penalty imposable.
-
2010 (7) TMI 202 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI
Stay – Refund - The applicant are a registered 100% EOU and rendering BPO services taxable as business auxiliary services. Appellant claimed service tax credit on input services. Copy of invoices produced and documents held as not produced, ought to have been specifically called for. Held that – prima facie services exported and substantial amounts received in foreign exchange.. revision order for recovery of refund not sustainable. Case made out for waiver. Pre deposit waived.
-
2010 (7) TMI 200 - CESTAT, MUMBAI
Penalty - While sanctioning the loans, the respondent is collecting commission for providing such services which fail, under the category of service provided as “Banking and Financial services” with effect from 10-9-2004. As soon as it came to the knowledge of the respondent, they immediately obtained the registration and paid the Service tax along with the interest but the adjudicating authority imposed a penalty under Sections 76, 77 and 78 of the Finance Act on the respondent. Held that – penalty set aside in impugned order on the ground that service tax paid before issue of show cause notice.
-
2010 (7) TMI 199 - CESTAT, AHMEDABAD
Appeal to Appellate Tribunal - the appellants only challenged the penalty imposed upon the appellants on the ground that the said appellant was a proprietary firm during the relevant period and on death of the proprietor, the said firm gets dissolved and as such penalty imposed on him cannot be recovered. Held that – proprietary firm gets dissolved with the death of proprietor. Appeal filed by legal representative on behalf of firm not maintainable.
|
