|
Advanced Search Options
Service Tax - Case Laws
Showing 21 to 40 of 150 Records
-
2012 (7) TMI 809
Penalty non-payment of service tax appellant provided the services of helping the financee/bankers in financing the vehicle purchasers and they were getting a commission - they are not challenging the service tax liability having discharged the service tax liability and also interest thereof Held that:- Provisions of section 80 invoked as there is a substantial justification for non-discharge of service tax liability on a bona fide belief in favor of assessee
-
2012 (7) TMI 808
Whether when courier service is connected with export and relevancy thereof was not doubted, the appellant cannot be denied relief of credit relating to tax paid for appropriate consequence under different law Held that:- When the authority recorded that certificates from courier agency were presented by the appellant, authority could have made an enquiry with the courier agency for further clarification in the matter if he was not satisfied with those certificates - Once the sample copy of the evidence submitted on record, does not rule out genuineness of claim of the appellant, the appellant succeeds in the appeal, accordingly that is allowed.
-
2012 (7) TMI 807
Condonation of delay - order dated 21-01-2009 was received by the applicant on 18-2-2010 by fax Held that:- Appeal was filed on 24-03-2010 and there is a delay of more than one year filing the appeal - Commissioner (Appeals) has no power to condone the delay beyond the period prescribed under the Act - appeal is dismissed
-
2012 (7) TMI 780
Eligibility for Notification No.12/2003-ST - According to Notification No.12/2003 what is required is that the goods and materials must have been sold by the service provider to the recipients of services and evidence should be available Held that:- Invoices have been raised for the value of spare parts - Having accepted the invoice submitted at the time of import and having determined the transaction value at that time, if the department makes a claim that spare parts have not been sold, it will not be acceptable unless it is shown that the transaction value was rejected and arrived at on some other basis or before the Customs it was declared that there were no sale. No such evidence has been placed before us nor does it form a part of memo of appeal - value of spare parts form a part of contract for maintenance and repair and exemption under the Notification No.12/2003-ST is available In favor of assessee
Repair or Maintenance service in respect of movable or immovable goods - held that:- While the respondents have produced photographs of gas turbines to submit that they are nothing but immovable property, other than relying on the contract and submission that the Commissioner has misconstrued the contract to be for maintenance and repair of power plant, the Revenue has not come up with any evidence or document to support the view that turbines is a movable property. - Decided in favor of assessee.
-
2012 (7) TMI 779
Availing double benefit - benefit of Notification 01/2006 ST and also availing CENVAT credit - Original authority confirmed the demand and appropriated the amount already paid and Commissioner proposed revision and imposed penalty u/s 78 - Held that:- The assessee on the mistake coming to their notice promptly paid the amount involved along with interest due thereon - as there was nothing irregular in taking the credit of the CENVAT on the "input services", the original authority rightly did not impose the penalty - Order-in-Revision cannot be sustained inasmuch as there was no allegation in the original show-cause notice about wrong availment of the benefit of the notification - in favour of assessee.
-
2012 (7) TMI 778
Advisory fees for merchant banking service - appellant submitted that service tax has been demanded on these services on the ground that these services are to be categorized under Management Consultancy Service' - application for waiver of pre deposit - Held that:- Circular no. 1/1/2001-ST dated 27.06.2001 issued in exercise of the powers vested in the Board Section 37B to ensure that there is uniformity in the classification of excisable goods in this case service tax - the appellant have made out a case to show that the appellants had a bona fide belief that the services rendered by them were not taxable prior to 16.07.2001 thus,pre-deposit is required to be waived and stay against recovery of the dues during the pendency has to be granted.
-
2012 (7) TMI 777
'Security Agency Services' - Cooperative society - Assessee contested that they are not the commercial concerned engaged in providing security services - Held that:- As decided in BHOOTPURVA SAINIK SOCIETY Versus COMMISSIONER OF C. EX. & S.T., ALLAHABAD [2011 (9) TMI 736 (Tri)]that prior to 18.04.06, the definition of security agency was in relation to a commercial concerned engaged in the business of rendering services - the confirmation of service tax against the appellant for the period prior to 18.04.06 is not sustainable as appellant is a cooperative society - as definition was amended w.e.f. 18.04.06 and included 'any person' engaged in the business of rendering services related to the security of property or any person etc the appellant is liable to pay service tax w.e.f. 18.04.06 - case remanded for re-quantification of the demand.
-
2012 (7) TMI 776
Demand of service tax - Society of ex-servicemen - service of Security Agency - definition of Security Agency was changed w.e.f. 18.4.2006 referring "any person" engaged in the business of rendering services instead of 'commercial concern'. With effect from 18.4.06, they have started paying service tax Held that:- Society of ex-servicemen engaged in providing security services so as to provide reemployment of ex-servicemen, cannot be held to be a commercial concern. Security agency services rendered by commercial concern was liable to pay service tax and the appellant not being a commercial concern, cannot be held to be liable to pay tax
-
2012 (7) TMI 744
Sharing of manpower - Demand of Service tax as man-power recruitment or supply agency service - Held that:- The applicants are deputing their manager/employees to hotels run by the subsidiaries/associate companies on deputation and the cost is recovered on the basis of actual and applicant is not retaining any amount out of the cost recovered from the hotels run by subsidiary/associate companies - applicants are not running any manpower recruitment or supply agency as they are managing hotels and some employees were sent to other hotels managed by the subsidiaries/associate companies - strong case for waiver of pre-deposit of the dues - in favour of assessee.
-
2012 (7) TMI 741
Denial of benefit of Cenvat Credit Scheme in respect of inputs services - as the amount shown to be paid by the transporter cannot be treated as service tax and credit cannot be extended to the appellant - Held that:- As before taking a final decision in the matter, it is necessary to verify the facts that in respect of the credits claimed by the appellant there are invoices showing that service tax has been paid by the transporter. A verification at the place, where the said transporter is registered as a service provider and where he is filing service tax returns may be necessary - it is proper to remit this matter for de novo consideration by the adjudicating authority.
-
2012 (7) TMI 740
Dis allowance of Cenvat Credit - "vehicle insurance, AMC on Xerox machines, housekeeping by management" - SCN issued proposing confirmation service tax demand and imposition of penalties - Held that:- the show-cause notice itself does not list out all the disputed services and uses, phrases like "activities like" and "the input services including" - there appears to be no formal stand taken in the reply contesting the demand proposed in the show-cause notice as the emphasis was only on waiving penal proceedings in view of the fact that respondent-assessee has paid the entire disputed amount with interest in PLA - set aside the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) and that of the original authority and remand the matter to the original authority to give specific findings on the issues raised in the show-cause notice.
-
2012 (7) TMI 739
Denial of refund claim - condition No.(iii) of Notification No. 41/2007-S.T. dated 6.10.2007 as amended by Notification No. 3/2008-ST dated 19.2.2008, i.e. posting of exporter's invoice and corresponding Shipping Bills on the consignment notes/lorry way Bills had not been done - Held that:- As the exported goods are transported from the appellant's factory to Kakinada Port directly and considering peculiar nature of the goods, the entire consignments covered by one Shipping Bill cannot be transported by a single lorry, as an export consignment is in the order of 6000 to 8000 tones. Therefore, it requires to be aggregated at the port premises before the Shipping documents are prepared - as the fact of exports is not being disputed it cannot be the case that the goods are exported from Kakkinada Port without being transported from the factory of the appellants as claimed by them, therefore the compliance of Condition No. (iii) should be ascertained by broadly correlating the evidence relating to transport and service tax paid on such transport charges and the quantity exported.
Claim for refund of service tax on Godown rent may also be considered afresh after ascertaining the veracity of the claim of reimbursement by the appellants - matter remanded to the original authority for fresh consideration.
-
2012 (7) TMI 738
Cenvat credit eligibility of the assessee to utilize the cenvat credit taken by them of the service tax and of the central excise duty, for discharging the service tax liability on GTA services Held that:- In the case of Aravind Fashions Ltd. (2011 (9) TMI 852 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT) held that assessee is eligible to utilize the cenvat credit for discharging of service tax liability, which has been imposed on them as a recipient of services. Decided in favor of assessee
-
2012 (7) TMI 715
Works Contract Service - Turnkey Contract - whether service provided to the Irrigation and CAD Department of Government of Andhra Pradesh are classifiable under the head "works contract service" - Tribunal has decided the issue against the assessee holding that the same is liable to service tax.
Interim stay granted by the High Court.
-
2012 (7) TMI 713
Denial of Cenvat credit - alleged that the job worker-appellant was manufacturing dutiable goods and providing exempted service (chrome plating) and that they had not maintained separate accounts in terms of Rule 6(2) of CENVAT Credit Rules 2004 - Held that:- a) Manufacturer-appellant taking credit on piston rings in coil form and sending the same under Rule 4 (5) (a) for the purpose of chrome plating is in order. - (b) As the activity of chrome plating does not amount to manufacture and no excisable goods emerge, there is no question of exemption from excise duty and, therefore, levy of service tax is attracted on the said activities. - (c) The exemption under Notification No. 8/2005 ST being a conditional exemption subject to fulfillment of obligation by the raw material supplier, the same cannot be thrust on the job worker-appellant. Therefore, payment of service tax by the job worker-appellant is in order. - (d) Job worker-appellant cannot be held to have provided any exempted services attracting the provisions of Rule 6 of CENVAT Credit Rules. - (e) The job worker appellant cannot be held to have had any intention to evade excise duty/service tax. - (f) The credit taken by the manufacturer appellant of the service tax paid by the job worker appellant is in order.
-
2012 (7) TMI 708
Service Tax demand on the basis on Audit Report - Held that:- Both the authorities have not correctly examined the issue, by taking into account the balance sheet, profit and loss account and the other relevant documentary evidences - if the revenue is making an allegation that the appellant has realised service consideration to the tune of Rs.339 crores, as against 337 Crores as reflected in balance sheet, it is for the revenue to establish the said fact while producing sufficient evidences on record as even audit reports, on the basis of which allegations have been made, do not stand supply to the appellant - set aside the impugned order and remand the matter to the original Adjudicating Authority with directions to supply the basis of making the allegation of realisation of more amount for the services provided by them and to examine the documentary evidences - in favour of assessee by way of remand.
-
2012 (7) TMI 707
Tour Operator's Service - demand, interest u/s 75 and penalties u/s 76, 77 and 78 - non service tax registration not obtained - invoking the extended period of limitation - assessee contention that they are engaged in mere transportation of passengers from one place to another in a vehicle under a permit granted by the competent authority and an alternative relief as claim of exemption under Notification No.20/2009-ST dt. 07/07/2009 - Held that:- Considering the definitions of "tour" and "tour operator" under Section 65 it would become abundantly clear that the activities of the assessees who are before us fell within the definition of "tour" and accordingly the assessees fell within the ambit of "tour operator" defined from time to time - the passengers were touring in the buses of the assessees. These buses were "tourist vehicles" within the meaning of this term defined under Section 65 of the Finance Act, 1994 read with Section 2(43) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 - as the assessee were running the buses on predetermined routes in scheduled hours under such permit can be held to have undertaken the business of planning, scheduling, organizing or arranging tours squarely covered by the main part of the definition of "tour operator" under Section 65(115).
Claim of benefit of Notification No.20/2009-ST dt. 07/07/2009 read with corrigendum dt. 31/08/2009 merits consideration - the said Notification granted full exemption from payment of service tax on the taxable service referred to in Section 65(105)(n) of the Finance Act, 1994, provided by a tour operator having contract carriage permit or tourist vehicle permit for inter-State or intra-State transportation of passengers, excluding tourism, conducted tours, charter or hire services
Remand the case back to pass speaking orders after upholding the taxability of the assessee's activities under Section 65(105)(n) to consider the claim for exemption under Notification No.20/2009-ST and re quantify the taxable value considering plea that income from stage carriage was also included in the taxable value, excluding luggage and parcel charges from the taxable value and 'cum-tax value' - in favour of assessee by way of remand.
-
2012 (7) TMI 706
Waiver of pre-deposit Refund of service tax by way of self adjustment under rule 6(4A) / 6(4B) - appellant paid service tax on value of cleaning service provided - later they realised that they need not have paid such service tax because recipient hospital was not a commercial establishment and therefore the service rendered to such establishments was not covered by entry at Section 65(24b). Therefore they adjusted the excess service tax paid Held that:- Rule 4B as in force after 01-03-2007 clearly states that excess payment made on account of reasons involving interpretation of law, taxability, classification, value or applicability of any exemption notification shall not be allowed to be refunded by way of credit taken by the assessee on his own. In the present case the claim for refund has arisen on account of interpretation of law and therefore such refund cannot be claimed refund under Rule 6 (4A) as it existed at the relevant time or even later. Appellant directed to make deposit of 50% of the tax amount demanded as a pre-condition
-
2012 (7) TMI 705
Short payment of service tax - extended period of limitation - appellant had bifurcated services provided by him in various stage as consulting and non-consulting category - service tax was paid only on those categories of services which were suo motu identified as consulting services Held that:- They were filing regular returns with the Department. It cannot be held that there was any suppression or misstatement of facts by the appellants with intention to evade payment of service tax demand. Show cause notice having been issued on 3.10.2006 for the period 1.10.98 to 31.03.05 is admittedly beyond the normal period of limitation. Demand is barred by limitation. Appeal is allowed on merits as also on limitation.
-
2012 (7) TMI 704
Waiver of pre-deposit - business of providing package tours - package tour involved providing of air transport, transportation from airport to hotel and back to airport, room accommodation in hotel, provision for food and beverages and sight-seeing for lumpsum price Held that:- service tax on Domestic Air Travel came into force only with effect from 01-07-2010. Even when it was introduced the service tax element is only to the extent of Rs.100 per journey or 10% of the ticket whichever is lower. So prima facie there is something incongruous in demanding service tax at the rate of 10.2% for the period 10-09-04 to 17-04-2006 and at 12.24% for the period 18-04-2006 to March 2007 on the gross value for airfare, accommodation and food when such items were not taxable. The issue whether these items can be taxed as value of service for planning, scheduling, organizing or arranging tours needs careful examination. Pre-deposit waived.
........
|
