• Follow
Tax Management India .com TMI - Tax Management India. Com   
Case Laws
Home Case Index Service Tax
Law
Court
Landmark
Citation -
 

Showing 1 to 20 of 14620 Records

Service Tax - Case Laws

 

2016 (5) TMI 180 - CESTAT CHENNAI

J-Ray McDermott Engineering Services Private Ltd. Versus Commissioner of Service Tax, Chennai

Refund claim - Rejected on ground of (a) invoices on which credit has been availed and refund claim pertaining to unregistered premises, (b) inputs invoice on which refund claimed does not pertain to the claim period and (c) ineligible input services - export of services - Cenvat credit in respect of unutilized input credit was accumulated in the record of the assessee and when refund thereof was claimed, the said was disallowed by the adjudicating authority. - Held that - there is no dispute that export of goods and services are not taxable and registration is not a criteria to allow refund w ....... - .......


2016 (5) TMI 136 - CESTAT MUMBAI

M/s. Abhijeet Infrastructure Limited Versus Commissioner of Service Tax Cell, Central Excise Head Quarters, Nagpur

Refund claim - Amount of service tax paid in excess than the amount actually payable by them under Management & Repair Services - Held that - if it is established that the gross receipt of service charges is lesser than the gross service charges on which service tax was paid then the excess paid service tax is prima facie refundable to the appellant. If the lower authority has any doubt about the accounting, calculation, the right course of action is that he should call the appellant in person and give them the opportunity to explain the doubts as regard the accounting and calculation etc. ....... - .......


2016 (5) TMI 135 - CESTAT MUMBAI

M/s. Transindia Logistics Park Versus Commissioner of Service Tax, Raigad

Disallowance of Cenvat credit - Insurance Auxiliary Service - Availed Cenvat Credit in respect of certain service which is exclusively used for non taxable activity that is auction sale abandoned cargo and export of stuff cargo - Appellant contended that auction of abandoned goods being a trading activity is not a exempted service as the trading activity was covered under the definition of exempted service only w.e.f. 01.04.2011. - Held that - even prior to 1.4.2011 since no service tax was payable on auction sale of abandoned cargo and export cargo, credit was not admissible on the input serv ....... - .......


2016 (5) TMI 134 - CESTAT MUMBAI

Bizsolindia Services Pvt. Ltd. Versus Commissioner of Central Excise, Pune - III

Taxability - Amount received under the category of Management Consultancy and Manpower Recruitment Supply Agency Service - Appellant wrongly claimed expenses as reimbursable and did not include the same in the taxable value for payment of service tax - Held that - the appellant has been showing the amounts which has been claimed as reimbursable are not an amount towards the services but are in respect of various fees paid to DGFT authorities towards the application fees, licence fees, etc. Also the demand drafts raised in the name of DGFT authorities and receipts are issued by DGFT authorities ....... - .......


2016 (5) TMI 133 - CESTAT MUMBAI

M/s. USV Limited Versus Commissioner of Service Tax, Mumbai-II

Demand of Service tax - Overseas service under reverse charge mechanism - Deposit of amount of service tax as per the objection raised by the audit officer - Appellant submitted that it is a settled position that refund if any arises against the pre-deposit made during the proceedings shall be refundable as outcome of the adjudication of such demand. The relevant date for the purpose of refund under Section 11B is the date of the adjudication order on the demand case and not from the date of deposit of service tax. Also the amount deposited during investigation is treated as pre-deposit and th ....... - .......


2016 (5) TMI 132 - CESTAT HYDERABAD

Balaji Pressure Vessels Ltd. Versus Commissioner of Central Excise

Rejection of refund claim - Amount paid prior to show cause notice - Maintenance and Repair service and other service - Refund claim rejected on the ground that appellants have not proved that the burden of duty has not been passed on to other person and Commissioner (Appeals) ordered the amount to be credited to be Consumer Welfare fund - Held that - because the appellants showed the amount of ₹ 89,1507- as expenditure in the books of account, they have passed on the burden to their customers and therefore, the refund claim is hit by unjust enrichment. Though the appellants produced the ....... - .......


2016 (5) TMI 89 - CESTAT CHENNAI

M/s ITC Ltd. Versus Commissioner of Central Excise, Salem

Admissibility of Cenvat credit - Service tax paid in respect of various service provided in relation to the maintenance of health of factory workers - Held that - employees were working in a situation calling for medical necessity and safety, controlling of pollution and health hazards. Law need not necessarily codify each and every item as input used in or in relation to manufacture. The basic principle being use of input in or in relation to manufacture , such test is to be applied to consider allowance of CENVAT credit of the service tax paid on the input utilized and having relevance to th ....... - .......


2016 (5) TMI 88 - CESTAT NEW DELHI

M/s. Bharti Airtel Ltd. Versus C.S.T. Service Tax-Delhi

Demand of Service tax alongwith equal amount of penalty - Provider of telecommunication services - Revenue submitted that applicant have short paid service tax in as much as they have not discharged service tax on the gross billed amount for their services, instead paid service tax on the amounts received only. - Held that - neither the show cause notice nor the impugned order had elaborated the reason for confirming the differential service tax against the appellant. Also no evidence was brought forward by the lower authority to substantiate that the appellant have realized consideration towa ....... - .......


2016 (5) TMI 87 - CESTAT NEW DELHI

M/s. Grasim Industries Ltd. Versus C.C.E. Indore

Demand of Service tax - Transport of gas through pipeline - Section 65(105)(zzz) of the Finance Act 1994 - Supply of chlorine through pipeline - Held that - the appellants have rightly calculated the cost of transportation through pipeline in their assessable value of chlorine for central excise purpose as the place of delivery is pre determined as delivery point of pipeline at the recipient s end. The appellants are selling chlorine and upon delivery of chlorine through pipeline at the buyers end, the transaction is concluded. The pipeline is laid and owned by the appellants. The said pipelin ....... - .......


2016 (5) TMI 86 - CESTAT NEW DELHI

M/s Ashi Creations Pvt. Ltd. Versus CST, Delhi - II

Refund claim - Service tax paid on technical, inspection and certification service in respect of services utilized for export of the goods - Notification No. 17/2009-ST dated 09/7/2009 - Held that - the invoice as also the shipping bills raised by the appellant were available at the time of raising of the bill by M/s Threads Incorporation Buying Services and could have been very well mentioned in the said invoice. However, the same was not referred in the bill for the services, for the reasons best known to the appellant. Also the particulars mentioned in the said bill so raised by the service ....... - .......


2016 (5) TMI 13 - CESTAT NEW DELHI

Kamal Rub Plast Industries P Ltd. Versus CCE-Delhi-iii

Admissibility of Cenvat credit for the period April 2011 February 2012- Service tax paid on construction services - Department contended that as the services have been used for construction of building which is neither for finished goods nor output services, but the output being property, the credit is not admissible. Also from 01.04.2011 the service of construction of a building for civil structure or part thereof has been specifically excluded from the definition of input service but appellant submitted that these services were availed by the appellant and building/construction was completed ....... - .......


2016 (5) TMI 12 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT

Commissioner Central Excise Commissionerate, Jaipur Versus National Engineering Industries Ltd.

Cenvat credit - Common Input services belongs to three units but the whole of the credit was availed at one unit - Assessee contended that the units may be situated at different places but are under the common management and the Cenvat Credit has rightly been claimed. - Held that - no substantial question of law arise out of the order of the Tribunal and the Tribunal has rightly found that all the three units had a common management and no contrary material was placed on record by the Commissioner while holding that there was no nexus in between the three units. By applying the judgment of Guj ....... - .......


2016 (4) TMI 1113 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT

M/s Mittal Construction Co. Versus Commissioner of Central Excise, Central Excise House, Ludhiana, Punjab

Validity of order passed ex-parte - Violation of principles of natural justice - Demand of Service tax - Invokation of extended period of limitation - Appellant provided services of protection, pipe laying using trenching/trenchless, reinstatement of trench, OFC cable blowing including other associated works to its clients - Appellant contended that it had carried out substantial part of work prior to levy of service tax and thus, there was no question of levy of tax on services rendered prior to date of levy of tax. - Held that - appeal against the order of Commissioner (Appeals) was filed by ....... - .......


2016 (4) TMI 1079 - CESTAT NEW DELHI

M/s D.D. International Pvt. Ltd. Versus CST, Delhi

Waiver of pre-deposit - Violation of the provisions of Section 35F of Central Excise Act, 1944 - Appellant neither filed stay application nor made pre-deposit - Demand alongwith interest and penalty confirmed on the ground that the appellant was not eligible for the benefit of exemption Notification No. 18/2009-ST dated 7.7.2009 - Appellant contended that it satisfied all the conditions of Notification No. 18/2009 except that it did not file EXP-2 return every six months of the financial year within 15 days of the completion of the said six months which is only a procedural requirement. Theref ....... - .......


2016 (4) TMI 1078 - DELHI HIGH COURT

Ebiz. Com Pvt. Ltd. Versus Union Of India & Anr.

Seeking declaration that the search conducted and summons issued to be illegal and ultra vires to the provisions of the Finance Act, 1994 - Wrong availment of exemption under Notification No. 26/2012-ST dated 20th June, 2012 from payment of Service tax on some of the services provided by claiming to be a tour operator - evasion of payment of service tax. - Held that - it is not clear whether the DGCEI was conscious of the pending proceedings and show cause notices issued by the CST under Section 73(1) of the Finance Act, 1994 and the proceedings consequent thereto. This aspect is significant s ....... - .......


2016 (4) TMI 1077 - CESTAT NEW DELHI

Escorts Ltd. Versus CCE, Jaipur And Vice-Versa

Demand of Service tax - Consulting Engineering Services - Availed services of foreign consulting firm and paid technical know-how fee to the said service provider, which was a lump sum amount as also royalty paid for the licence to manufacturer the goods, which was based on the price of the final products - Held that - on examination of the agreement entered into between the appellant and foreign service provider, we fail to note any clause in the said agreement vide which the appellant has been Authorised to pay service tax on behalf of M/s.Kyaba. Admittedly, in terms of the provisions, such ....... - .......


2016 (4) TMI 1037 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD

M/s Neel Tours & Travels Versus Commissioner, C. Ex. & S. Tax,, Vadodara

Period of limitation - Demand for recovery of short paid Service tax - Rent-a-cab services provided under contract upon pro-rata kilometer basis - Held that - the issue is no more res integra in view of the recent judgment of Hon ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Commissioner of Service Tax Vs Vijay Travels 2015 (1) TMI 809 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT . In the present case, the extended period of limitation is rightly invoked and confirmed against the appellant, as the appellant had suppressed the correct value received from their customers during the relevant period and the leviability of Servic ....... - .......


2016 (4) TMI 1036 - MADRAS HIGH COURT

N. Bala Baskar Versus Union of India and Others

Validity of circular of the Central Board dated 10.2.2012 - Liability of Service tax - Agreement for development entered into between the petitioner and his siblings with the fifth respondent - Held that - the agreement that the petitioner had, cannot be separated into two portions. The agreement gave rise to a bouquet of rights for the fifth respondent builder. One was to put up a construction of an area, a part of which could be sold by them to third parties. They could be sold not only as such, but also along with the undivided share of land. Those parties had certainly availed the services ....... - .......


2016 (4) TMI 1035 - CESTAT MUMBAI

M/s Pawan Construction Versus Commissioner of Custom, Central Excise And Service Tax, Nagpur

Includability - Cost of free supply of the materials for rendering Commercial or Industrial Construction Services - Appellant availed benefit of Notification No. 1/2006-ST - First appellate authority has tried to hair-split the facts and hold against the appellant by recording that provisions of Section 67 has under gone change w.e.f. 18-04-2006 - Held that - the arguments put for by the departmental representative and the findings recorded by the first appellate authority are not in consonance with the law as settled by the Larger Bench. The Larger Bench of the Tribunal considered the scope o ....... - .......


2016 (4) TMI 1034 - CESTAT KOLKATA

M/s Numaligarh Refinery Ltd. Versus Commissioner of Central Excise, Shillong

Service tax liability - as recipient of service under Rule 2(1)(d)(iv) of Service Tax Rules, 1994 - Consultancy Engineering Services, Technical Consultancy Services and Technical Test & Analysis Services - Held that - the entire amount had been received by the appellant prior to 18/4/2006 i.e. the date of enactment of Section 66A of the Finance Act, 1994. Hence, the issue is covered by the decision of the Hon ble Bombay High Court in the case of Indian National Ship Owners Association Vs. Union of India 2008 (12) TMI 41 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT against which the Department s SLP was dismissed b ....... - .......


1........
 
 
 

what is new what is new

Latest Updates

Featured

Subscription

Experts

More Options

Communication




|| About us || Contact us || Feed Back || Disclaimer || Terms of Use || Privacy Policy || TMI Database || Members || Site Map || ||

© Taxmanagementindia.com [A unit of MS Knowledge Processing Pvt. Ltd.] All rights reserved.

Go to Mobile Website