|
Advanced Search Options
Service Tax - Case Laws
Showing 1 to 20 of 976 Records
-
2012 (12) TMI 1184
... ...
... ... ..... e service recipient and same has been verified by the department and confirmed vide letter dated 3-8-2012. In these circumstances, I find that the appellants have discharged the burden of unjust enrichment; therefore, they are entitled for refund claim. 4. In these terms, I set aside the impugned order and allow the appeal with consequential relief. The adjudicating authority is directed to grant the refund claim within 30 days of the receipt of this order. (Dictated in Court)
-
2012 (12) TMI 1119
... ...
... ... ..... nd seek appropriate statutory remedies by way of rectification and/or revision as the case may be. Liberty granted. Writ Petition stands dismissed as withdrawn, along with pending application.
-
2012 (12) TMI 1118
... ...
... ... ..... vide his order date d29.8.2008 which is under challenge. 2. Primarily, when the aforesaid aspect is undisputable, and learned first appellate authority has not disposed the appeal on merit, in all fairness the appellant should get an opportunity of hearing appeal by the said authority. Therefore, matter is remitted back to the learned Commissioner (Appeals) to grant fair opportunity of hearing to the appellant as expeditiously as possible in view of undisputed aspect of payment recorded by the Tribunal as aforesaid. We appreciate that the matter is nearly 5 years old and need not be kept pending at the first appellate stage upon remand. Therefore, the appellant is directed to make an application for fixing of date of hearing within 4 weeks of receipt of this order, and if such application is made, the authority shall fix the appropriate date for hearing and dispose the appeal within the reasonable time of completion of hearing. (Dictated & pronounced in the Open Court.)
-
2012 (12) TMI 1073
Entitlement of interim order - pre-deposit - Held that: - the amount was deposited within time or after delay of one or two days. That would not be so fatal to cancel the contract of the petitioner. In this view of the matter, the petitioner is entitled for the interim order - petition allowed - decided in favor of petitioner.
-
2012 (12) TMI 1061
Waiver and stay of proceedings - CENVAT credit - relevant invoices were not issued to the insurance company but to the vehicle owners - Held that: - the stay orders produced by the learned consultant for the appellant found to have presented a precedent to be followed - waiver and stay granted.
-
2012 (12) TMI 1038
... ...
... ... ..... tter before the Bench has since relinquished the vakalatnama. We further come across a memo dated 24.9.2012 filed by someone claiming to be “counsel for the petitioner”. Even this memo was filed in appeal “No.ST/9511/2010” and does not mention the name of the “counsel”. Further, this memo prayed for extension of time for deposit by a period of one month. That period, to be reckoned from 24.9.2012, expired long ago. 3. In the absence of evidence of pre-deposit, we dismiss the appeal for non-compliance with Section 35F of the Central Excise Act as applicable to the captioned service tax appeal. (Pronounced and dictated in open Court)
-
2012 (12) TMI 1026
... ...
... ... ..... confirmed. 3. The ld. consultant for the applicant submits that the transportation charges of empty container has been included in the service charge and service tax has been paid, and they are entitled for input service credit. It is further submitted that same are covered under storage and warehousing service. 4. Heard the ld. consultant. 5. I find that it is not disputed that the amount of transportation paid by the applicant are included in the service charges and service tax has been paid. If service tax payment has been received by the department and same was included in the assessable value of the services provided. In these circumstances, I am of the view that the appellant are entitled for input service credit. Therefore, applicant has made out a case for 100 waiver of pre-deposit. Accordingly, I waive the pre-deposit of entire amount of service tax, interest and penalty and stay recovery thereof during the pendency of the appeal. (Dictated in Court)
-
2012 (12) TMI 1025
... ...
... ... ..... t of the Counsel in choosing the forum of appeal. The delay it is stated by Mr. Sathish Sundar, Advocate is due to inadvertence. 8. Though no reason has been given in the affidavit , the learned Counsel for the petitioner Mr. Sathish Sundar owns responsibility for the delay and the Court is inclined to accept the same and the apology. Accordingly, the impugned order is set aside and the writ petition is allowed directing the Commissioner, Central Excise (Appeals) the third respondent herein, to dispose of the appeal filed by the petitioner on merits, after considering the prima facie case as is prevalent at the time of disposal of the appeal. It is clarified that if the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) said to be in favour of the petitioner has been reversed or modified by higher forum then the same will be binding. 9. In the result, the writ petition is allowed as above. However, is no order as to costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
-
2012 (12) TMI 1010
... ...
... ... ..... se for 100 waiver. Accordingly, I waive the requirement of pre-deposit of duty, interest and penalty and take up the appeal itself for disposal. 4. The issue has been settled by this Tribunal in the case of CCE v. DNH Spinners 2010 25 STT 295 (Ahd. - CESTAT) wherein the Tribunal has held that although the documents are not in the name of the assessee's factory but same are in the name of the head office of the assessee and there is no dispute about the input service received by the assessee. Therefore, substantive benefit cannot be denied on procedural grounds. Same analogy applies to these facts. Therefore, I set aside the impugned order and allow the appeal with consequential relief.
-
2012 (12) TMI 997
... ...
... ... ..... d period of limitation was not invokable. We have also heard the learned Superintendent (AR) who submits that the appellant filed Returns only for the period from April 2005 to September 2007 and that they filed Returns for the said period only in October 2007. These facts are not in dispute. 2. We have also considered the plea of financial hardships raised by the appellant. Considering the factual matrix, we are of the view that the appellant should deposit an amount of ₹ 20,00,000/- (Rupees Twenty lakhs only), over and above the payments aforesaid, within four weeks and report compliance to the Deputy Registrar on 7.2.2013. The Deputy Registrar to report to the Bench on 14.2.2013. Subject to due compliance, there will be waiver and stay in respect of the penalty imposed on the appellant and the balance amount of service tax and interest thereon. 3. The miscellaneous application along with the appeal will be heard in due course. (Pronounced and dictated in open court)
-
2012 (12) TMI 907
Waiver of pre-deposit - Service tax, interest and penalty - Demand made on the ground that applicants are undertaking the road repairs which is a taxable service - Held that:- The repair of roads are exempted from payment of service tax with retrospective effect vide Section 143 of the Finance Act, 2012. Therefore, order is set aside and the appeal decides in favour of assessee
-
2012 (12) TMI 906
Management Consultancy Service - 65(105)(r) - Telecommunication services – Whether liaison work was service within the meaning of "Management Consultancy Service"
Held that:- The inclusive portion of a definition cannot restrict the meaning of the "means part" of the definition which defines the general meaning. However, the every name of the service indicates that the entry is meant to cover only consultancy service or advisory service and not all activities got done by management through others
Therefore, liaison work is not in the nature of any consultancy or advice. But only one of the temporary functions that was required for the functioning of the company. If a person does the activity of collecting of debts of a company that person cannot be considered to be doing management consultancy service though debt collection is a responsibility of the management. In favour of assessee
-
2012 (12) TMI 905
Waiver of pre-deposit - Service Tax, interest and penalty thereon - Abatement - Notification No.1/2006 dated 1.3.2006 which provides 60% abatement for payment of Service Tax on the condition that the assessee shall have to availed the credit on duty paid goods and inputs according to Service Tax on inputs services used for providing such taxable services - Held that:- Assessee had availed credit of Service Tax paid on input services, therefore, the applicant had not made out a case for total waiver of dues. Hence, the applicant is directed to deposit an amount of the credit availed. Partly allowed
-
2012 (12) TMI 880
Logistic services - service tax demand along with interest and penalties - appellant are logistic division of M/s. Mahindra and Mahindra Limited who providing various logistics services to another division - period is question from 15/12/2007 to 31/03/2010 - Held that:- Considering the submissions made by the Chartered Accountant it is found that Mahindra and Mahindra Limited is a legal entity which is having two separate divisions. Merely by taking two separate service tax registrations it cannot be said that both are separate legal entities. Therefore, demand for the period 15/12/2007 to 10/09/2008 is not sustainable.
For the remaining period, the matter needs examination by the adjudicating authority after obtaining reports from the Range Superintendent of Mumbai whether the appellant has paid the service tax or not - matter remanded back to the adjudicating authority for the period 11/09/2008 to March, 2010 thereafter to pass an appropriate order in accordance with law.
-
2012 (12) TMI 879
Service tax liability in respect of GTA services - discharged liability utilizing cenvat credit & not in cash - Held that:- As decided in Tribunal's decision in the case of Shree Rajasthan Sytex Ltd. [2011 (8) TMI 265 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI] read with judgement in the case of Nahar Industrial Enterprises [2010 (5) TMI 608 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT] & also Auro Spinning Mills and Ors. [2011 (7) TMI 849 - HIMACHAL PRADESH HIGH COURT] Cenvat credit is available for payment of GTA services on service tax as recipient of GTA services.
-
2012 (12) TMI 878
Business Auxiliary Service - toll tax collection in terms of the agreement entered into assessee & M/s National Highways Authority of India (NHAI)- Held that:- NHAI has availed the services of respondents and the said NHAI is not established by Revenue to be business concern or a commercial concern engaged in any business activities. Therefore, providing BAS to such NHAI is not conceivable
As decided in Intertoll India Consultants (P.) Ltd. v. CCE [2011 (5) TMI 257 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI] that toll tax and fee for use of bridge, by retaining the percentage of such collection, the activity cannot be held to be falling under BAS - appeal filed by the Revenue was dismissed.
Invoking extended period of limitation - Held that:- As decided in Brij Motors (P.) Ltd. v. CCE [2011 (11) TMI 410 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI] when the issue is interpreted by judicial forums in different ways, the extended period cannot be invoked in such a situation - in favour of assessee.
-
2012 (12) TMI 850
Writ of Certiorari - Business Auxiliary Service - demand of service tax, Interest thereon and penalty - invoking extended period of limitation - Held that:- As the petitioner does not plead violation of principles of natural justice, lack of jurisdiction or that the impugned order has been passed in an arbitrary and capricious manner by the authority but on the interpretation of the various provisions based on factual issues in the case.
It is trite law that this court under Article 226 of the Constitution will not be a court of appeal or examine for itself the correctness of the decision impugned and decide what is the proper view to be taken or the order to be made. As decided in Veerappa Pillai vs Raman and Raman Limited [1952 (3) TMI 31 - SUPREME COURT] that where matter involves disputed questions of fact or mixed question of law and fact or even ordinary question of law, it could be raised in appeal provided under the statute. See also Sohan Lal vs. Union of India [1957 (3) TMI 45 - SUPREME COURT], Basant Kumar v. Eagle Rolling Mills (1964 (2) TMI 73 - SUPREME COURT) & Thansingh vs. Superintendent of Taxes [1964 (2) TMI 79 - SUPREME COURT].
Therefore prima facie this court is not inclined to interfere with the order at this stage. As a result the petitioner has to pursue the alternative remedy provided under the Act. Writ Petition stands disposed.
-
2012 (12) TMI 849
Refund of duty - direction by Tribunal to return the excess amount recovered over and above the Service Tax amount within 30 days and report compliance - Held that:- While passing the order dated 12.10.2012, it was committed by the A.R that notice under section 87 has been withdrawn and the direction of the Tribunal will be complied within one month. Two months have elapsed since then and no action has been taken by the concerned officer. This is wilful disobedience of the directions of this Tribunal. Accordingly, the Dy. Commissioner, Service Tax Division, Raigad Commissionerate is hereby directed to show cause as to why contempt proceedings shall not be initiated against him for non-compliance of the direction of this Tribunal vide order dated 12.10.2012 cited supra. This notice is returnable within 15 days from today.
-
2012 (12) TMI 848
Writ of Certiorari - challenging the notice of attachment of immovable property alleging default in payment of service tax - Held that:- The petitioner is not the owner of the property in question, thus is not open for her to challenge the notice of attachment.
If the notice has been wrongly issued to the petitioner, it is open to the petitioner to give a representation to the respondent authority setting out the details of the transaction that has taken place as above. If any action is proposed to be taken as against the petitioner, thereafter the petitioner can defend such action as per law. At this stage, no relief as sought for can be granted. The petitioner, however, is directed to give a reply to the respondent authority explaining the facts as above so as to enable the department to take appropriate action as per law without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case. Writ petition disposed of in the above terms.
-
2012 (12) TMI 825
Business Auxiliary Services – Export of service – Refund claim for the service tax paid on input services - under Rule 5 of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 – Held that:- Input services received by the appellant and the nature of the services received, it is evident that all the services are essential in running the business of rendering the output service ‘Business Auxiliary Service' which is exported. Following the decision in case of Ultratech Cement Ltd., (2010 (10) TMI 13 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT) held that any service which has nexus with the business activity of the appellant, whether it is manufacturing or rendering service, has to be treated as “input service” coming within the purview of Rule 2(l) of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004. Therefore, appellant is rightly entitled for the refund of the service tax paid on input services which have been used in the rendering of output services has been exported. In favour of assessee
........
|
