|
Advanced Search Options
Service Tax - Case Laws
Showing 81 to 100 of 2090 Records
-
2013 (12) TMI 1322 - CESTAT BANGALORE
Waiver of pre deposit - Commercial Training and Coaching Service - Exemption under Notification No. 24/2004-S.T., dated 10-9-2004 - Held that:- prima facie case for the appellant against the demand raised under the head ‘commercial training and coaching service’. There is substance in the submission of the learned counsel that, prior to 1-5-2011, the date with effect from which the definition of ‘commercial training and coaching centre’ was amended, appellant was not liable to pay service tax on the amounts collected by them from trainees and students attending short term courses - appellant was working as a ‘vocational training institute’ during the material period. They got affiliated with the National Council for Vocational Training in 2009. Therefore, the claim of exemption is also prima facie sustainable. Insofar as the demand under the head ‘consulting engineer service’ is concerned, the submission is that they were rendering advisory assistance to industries on the directions of the State Government and were receiving financial aid from the Government. The services were rendered to both PSU and other industries. No remuneration was collected from those industries - Following decision of Central Power Research Institute v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Bangalore-II [2006 (5) TMI 26 - CESTAT, BANGALORE] - Stay granted.
-
2013 (12) TMI 1281 - CESTAT NEW DELHI
Small scale exemption - Amount received less than the limit prescribed – Entitlement for exemption under Notification No. 6/2005 – Held that:- There was no merit in the argument that value of services rendered when the service was not taxable should be included in the aggregate value of clearance, if such value is received after the service became taxable - the contention that non-filing of declaration when the assessee crossed value limit of Rs. 3 lakhs is fatal to the claim of the respondent for exemption under Notification No. 6/2005 cannot be accepted - Revenue has mechanically raised demands without looking into exemptions available to the assessee – also the assessee was a small service provider, the Department was duty bound to provide proper guidance – Decided against Revenue.
-
2013 (12) TMI 1277 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Pre-deposits ordered to be made – Reduction of the amount of pre-deposit – Plea of financial hardship - Held that:- Assessee contended that they had been incurring losses - the activities of the appellant company are closed down and the order passed by the Tribunal requires modification - the interest of justice would be served taking into account the correct financial condition of the appellant if it is directed to make a pre-deposit of Rs.55,00,000 – upon such submission rest of the duty to be waived till the disposal – Partial stay granted.
-
2013 (12) TMI 1276 - CESTAT CHENNAI
Stay application - Demand of service tax - Works Contract Service - Held that:- department should have provided better guidance to the applicant when he appeared before them to give a statement. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the applicant is directed to deposit Rs.24,000/- (Rupees Twenty four thousand only) within a period of 4 weeks and report compliance by 25.6.2013 for admission of appeal. Upon such deposit, predeposit of balance dues arising from the impugned order is waived and there shall be stay on collection of such dues during pendency of appeal - Prima facie case not in favour of assessee - Stay granted partly.
-
2013 (12) TMI 1275 - CESTAT BANGALORE
Entitlement for cenvat credit - Scope of Input service under Rule 2(l) of the CENVAT Credit Rules 2004 – Services used in relation to business activity or not – Held that:- Following CCE, Nagpur Vs. Ultratech Cement Ltd. [2010 (10) TMI 13 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT] -the question whether CENVAT credit on sponsorship service and renting of immovable property service was admissible to the respondent during the period of dispute requires to be addressed afresh by the Commissioner (Appeals) – order set aside in so far the services is concerned and the said question regarding 'CENVAT ability' of the two services (sponsorship service and renting of immovable property service) is directed to be reconsidered by the learned Commissioner (Appeals) – Decided against Assessee.
-
2013 (12) TMI 1274 - CESTAT CHENNAI
Demand of tax - Collection of certain expenditure towards documentation, inspection and royalty charges from the importers - Calculation of taxable value - Reimbursable expenses - Held that:- amount deposited by the respondent could be kept with the Revenue till disposal of the appeal. Prima facie, it appears that the respondent admitted that the expenses were charged from the customers. Hence, it is ordered that the deposit made by the respondent would be kept with the Revenue till disposal of the appeal - Decided in favour of Revenue.
-
2013 (12) TMI 1273 - CESTAT CHENNAI
Demand of service tax - Intellectual Property Services - Imposition of interest and penalty on the goodwill towards transfer of trademark licences - Held that:- Goodwill is assigned with the Trademark of the business concern. The value of Goodwill pertaining to right to use would be paid for a period of 10 years from 01.05.2007. Thus, the applicant failed to make out a prima facie case for waiver of pre-deposit of the entire amount of adjudged dues - Conditional stay granted.
-
2013 (12) TMI 1272 - CESTAT MUMBAI
Waiver of pre-deposit of the Service Tax interest and penalties - Exemption under Notification No. 24/2004-S.T., dated 10-9-2004 - Held that:- applicant is an Institute providing Vocational Training Courses to various students like fashion designing, graphic arts, media communication and digital communication etc. These courses are only vocational course and not an academic course and they are covered by the exemption under Notification No. 24/2004-S.T., dated 10-9-2004 and not required to get themselves registered with Service Tax department - applicants are entitled for benefit of exemption Notification No. 24/2004 having a strong prima facie case on merit. Therefore, we grant waiver of pre-deposit of entire amount of Service Tax along with interest and various penalties and stay recovery thereof during pendency of the appeal - Stay granted.
-
2013 (12) TMI 1271 - CESTAT MUMBAI
Demand of service tax - Club or Association Services - Following decision in the case of M/s. Indian Performing Right Society Ltd. - prima facie the activity undertaken by the appellant is not covered under the category of “Club or Association Services” - Stay granted.
-
2013 (12) TMI 1270 - CESTAT MUMBAI
Demand of service tax - Commercial and Industrial Construction Services - Held that:- appeal of the appellant have been dismissed for non-compliance of the stay order wherein the appellants were asked to make a pre-deposit of service tax along with interest. As the impugned order is passed without considering the merits of the case, we feel that the matter should be heard on merits by the Commissioner (Appeals) and thereafter pass an appropriate order on merits of the case. In view of this observation, we remand the matter back to the Commissioner (Appeals) for deciding the issue on merits without insisting any pre-deposit for hearing the appeal - Decided in favour of assessee.
-
2013 (12) TMI 1269 - CESTAT MUMBAI
Waiver of pre deposit - Service Tax demand - ‘Club or Association’ service - Held that:- The applicant are receiving remuneration on the licence allotted by them to their clients. Out of the total remuneration received by them, they distribute the money to the various members of their society who has assigned their copyright to them and retains certain amount for their own expenditure. Revenue wants to demand service tax on the amount retained by the applicant for their expenditure and membership fees received from the members of the society under the category of ‘Club or Association’ service - prima facie, the activity undertaken by the applicant are not covered under the relevant category ‘Club or Association’ service. Accordingly, we waive the requirement of pre-deposit of the entire amount of service tax, interest and various penalties and stay recovery thereof during the pendency of the appeal - Stay granted.
-
2013 (12) TMI 1268 - CESTAT BANGALORE
Availment of CENVAT Credit - Rent-a-cab service - Clearing & forwarding service - Whether ‘rent-a-cab’ service used by them as conveyance for their employees and ‘clearing & forwarding’ service used for transportation of goods from factory to the port for export during the period of dispute (June, 2005 to June, 2008) are covered by the definition of ‘input service’ under Rule 2(l) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 - Held that:- Rent-a-Cab service is provided by the assessee to these workers to reach the factory premises in time which has a direct bearing on the manufacturing activity. In fact the employee is also entitled to conveyance allowance. It also would form part of a condition of service and the amounts spent on the conveyance of the employees is also a factor which will be taken into consideration by the employees in fixing the price of the final product. By no stretch of imagination can it be construed as a welfare measure. It is a basic necessity. To ensure that the work force comes on time at the work place, the employers have taken this measure which has a direct bearing on the manufacturing activity. At any rate it is an activity relating to business - appellant is entitled to Cenvat credit on rent-a-cab service used for conveyance of their employees to and from factory.
In respect of the export consignments, the Bill of Lading inter alia serves as the document indicating ownership - incurring the freight and incurring charges for transit insurance could not be a sole consideration to decide the ownership or the point of the sale of the goods. In the present case, undisputedly, the ownership transfer takes place through Bill of Lading, which is issued at the port of export after loading of the goods on board the ship - Therefore view taken by the lower authorities against the party in relation to C & F service cannot be sustained - Following decision of COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, MADURAI Versus M/s STANGL PICKLES & PRESERVES [2011 (2) TMI 462 - CESTAT, CHENNAI] and Commissioner v. Stanzen Toyotetsu India (P) Ltd. [2011 (4) TMI 201 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT] - Decided in favour of assessee.
-
2013 (12) TMI 1228 - CESTAT NEW DELHI
Demand of service tax on outstanding balance (Debtors) - Ledger balance due for realization - Held that:- tax is chargeable on the amount shown outstanding by BSNL. As per BSNL outstanding balance is carry forwarded to next months and it cannot be a case of revenue demanding service tax every month on the same amount. Respondent (BSNL) contends that tax was leviable on amount realized and not on outstanding amount and they rely on Letter of Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue F. No. 137/12/97-CX-4 dated 03.12.97 in this regard. We find that commissioner (Appeal) has considered these submissions of BSNL and allowed their appeal - Decided against Revenue.
-
2013 (12) TMI 1227 - CESTAT BANGALORE
Waiver of pre deposit - Demand of service tax - Renting of Immovable Property Service - Held that:- a crucial fact was not pleaded before that authority by the party, nor did they plead it before the appellate authority. Before this Tribunal, however, they have pleaded the fact categorically. It has been stated that some of the buildings were rented out to the State Government/Departments for non-commercial use - It is incumbent on the appellant, however, to establish that the premises were actually allowed, under lease, to be used by Government offices. Prima facie, subject to proof of such use of the buildings, the appellant can claim exemption from the levy, given the definition of ‘Renting of Immovable Property’ under Section 65(90a) of the Act and the definition of the ‘taxable service’ under Section 65(105)(zzzz) of the Act. In this scenario, we are inclined to remand the case to the original authority, for the ends of justice, to enable the appellant to prove their case before that authority and to enable that authority to take a correct decision on the facts of the case - Decided in favour of assessee.
-
2013 (12) TMI 1226 - CESTAT MUMBAI
Demand of service tax - Banking and other financial services - Held that:- in the show-cause notice the amount of Rs.8,04,83,022/- has been taken into consideration as lease rent earned by the appellant whereas in the impugned order the adjudicating authority has taken into consideration the lease agreement with M/s JBF Industries Ltd., for considering the amount as Rs. 3.50 Crore. The adjudicating authority confirmed the demand after taken into consideration the amount mentioned in the show-cause notice and there is no discussion in the impugned order in respect of remaining demand. In view of this we find that the matter requires reconsideration by the adjudicating authority. Therefore the impugned order is set aside and the matter is remanded to the adjudicating authority for denovo consideration - Decided in favour of assessee.
-
2013 (12) TMI 1225 - CESTAT MUMBAI
Rejection of refund claim - Bar of limitation - Held that:- when a law pertains to a particular matter lays down time limits for demand of duty or refund of tax, the said time limit would prevail over the time limit prescribed under the general law of limitation. In the present case, the time limit is one year from the date of payment of service tax. Inasmuch as the appellant has filed the refund claim after a lapse of one year, the claim is time-barred - Following decision of Hindustan Coco Products ltd. Vs. CCE, Bombay [1987 (9) TMI 133 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI] and CC, Ahmedabad Vs. Vishal Exports overseas Ltd. [2007 (1) TMI 490 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD] - Decided against assessee.
-
2013 (12) TMI 1224 - CESTAT MUMBAI
Demand of service tax - Business Auxiliary Service - Held that:- to arrange for finance and granting of loans to provides certain services relating to the granting of loans, for an on behalf of the bank and for these activities the assessee is receiving commission, hence is liable to service tax under the “Business Auxiliary Service” - Following decision of South City Motors Ltd. V. Commissioner of Service Tax, Delhi reported in [2011 (11) TMI 408 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI] - Decided against assessee.
-
2013 (12) TMI 1223 - CESTAT BANGALORE
Cenvat credit taken on input service - Separate accounts not maintained - Common input services used in manufacture – Waiver of Pre-deposit – Held that:- The provisions prescribed a time limited for CENVAT credit taken on the common input services and reverse it so as to avert a demand under Rule 6(3) of the CENVAT Credit Rules 2004 but the assessee did not heed it - Now they claim to have reversed the inadmissible credit for the period from 1.4.2008 at a belated stage –Assessee is clearing both dutiable and exempted final products - They could have refrained from taking CENVAT credit on the common input services if it was their case that the quantum of credit attributable to the exempted final products was not segregable - The appellant however chose to take CENVAT credit of the entire amount of service tax paid on common input services – Appellant failed to make out a prima facie case for waiver – the appellant directed to deposit Rupees ten lakhs as pre-deposit – upon such submission rest of the duty to be stayed till the disposal – partial stay granted.
-
2013 (12) TMI 1222 - CESTAT CHENNAI
Denial of cenvat credit on various services – Waiver of Pre-deposit – Held that:- The main disputed services are, services like Man-power and Recruitment Agency, Management Consultants, Royalty Services etc. - Relying upon M/s BATA INDIA LTD Versus COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, CHENNAI-III [2013 (12) TMI 923 - CESTAT CHENNAI] - for services of Man-power Recruitment Agency, Management Consultants, Royalty Services, transportation of goods from Regional Distribution Centers (RDC) to Retail outlets etc., stay was granted on all the items of services except in respect of tax relating to ‘transportation of goods' from RDCs to retail outlets - The total amount involved in such transportation in these two cases will be around Rs.80,000/- only in the present appeals - the applicant directed to make a deposit of Rupees Eighty Thousand as pre-deposit – stay not granted.
-
2013 (12) TMI 1221 - CESTAT CHENNAI
Waiver of predeposit of tax - Demand of differential amount - Erection, commission and installation - Suppression of facts - Held that:- audit report relates to the year 2006 and the show-cause notice is issued after two years in 2008. It is also clear from the audit report that the audit report was provided on the basis of Board's circular dated 7.10.1998. In view of that, the allegation of suppression of facts, prima facie, is not sustainable - Stay granted.
........
|
