Law	-- All -- GST Income Tax Customs Corporate Laws Securities / SEBI Insolvency & Bankruptcy FEMA PMLA Service Tax Central Excise CST, VAT & Sales Tax Wealth tax Indian Laws
Court	-- Any -- Supreme Court SC Orders / Highlights High Court Tribunal Appellate authority for Advance Ruling Advance Ruling Authority ANTI-PROFITEERING AUTHORITY Commission Central Government Board DISTRICT/ SESSIONS Court Commissioner Other
Citation	--Year-- 2019 2018 2017 2016 2015 2014 2013 2012 2011 2010 2009 2008 2007 2006 2005 2004 2003 2002 2001 2000 1999 1998 1997 1996 1995 1994 1993 1992 1991 1990 1989 1988 1987 1986 1985 1984 1983 1982 1981 1980 1979 1978 1977 1976 1975 1974 1973 1972 1971 1970 1969 1968 1967 1966 1965 1964 1963 1962 1961 1960 1959 1958 1957 1956 1955 1954 1953 1952 1951 1950 Upto 1949 - -Volume- 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
Landmark	Nil - N/A Referred in >= 3 Cases Referred in >= 4 Cases Referred in >= 5 Cases Referred in >= 10 Cases Referred in >= 15 Cases Referred in >= 25 Cases Referred in >= 50 Cases Referred in >= 100 Cases
Order by	TMI Citation Date of Decision

Advanced Search Options

Service Tax - Case Laws

Showing 1 to 20 of 23909 Records

More information of case laws are visible to the Subscriber of a package i.e:-
Party Name, Court Name, Date of Decision, Full Text of Headnote & Decision etc.

• 2019 (9) TMI 670
  
  Recovery proceedings - demand of service tax - management consultancy service - fees paid to Hyatt International for the operation of Hotel - Business Auxiliary Service - miscellaneous payment to Hyatt International - Maintenance or repair service - subscription and maintenance of Software - Business Auxiliary Service - Reservation expenses, Hyatt Gold Passport, Hyatt chain services - Interior Decorator Service - penalty on Design and Consultancy charges - penalty on Advertising Agency Service - Business Auxiliary service - Currency Conversion Fee - Convention Centre Services - miscellaneous Revenue like photocopies etc - Management consultancy service - fees paid to Hyatt International for the operation of Hotel - period 18 April, 2006 to 31 March, 2007 - HELD THAT:- In the present case, as the period in dispute is from 18 April, 2006 to....... + More

---

• 2019 (9) TMI 667
  
  Renting of immovable property service - period August, 8/2008 to June, 6/2012 - eligibility for abatement of 40% in terms of notification no.26/2012 - service tax on letting out plant/machinery and fixtures to M/s. Mahindra Holidays & Resorts India Ltd. - Supply of tangible goods service - extended period of limitation - penalty u/s 77 and 78 of FA. HELD THAT:- The facts are akin to the ruling in the case of M/S JAI MAHAL HOTELS PVT LTD VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE [2014 (7) TMI 540 - CESTAT NEW DELHI], wherein it has been held that on true and fair construction of the provisions of Exclusionary Clause under Explanation I to Section 65(105) (zzzz) and in particular, sub-clause (d) thereof, it was held that renting of building used for the purpose of accommodation including hotels, meaning thereby renting of a building for a h....... + More

---

• 2019 (9) TMI 649
  
  Permission for withdrawal of appeal - Liability of sub-contractor to pay service tax - HELD THAT:- The appeal is dismissed as withdrawn.

---

• 2019 (9) TMI 648
  
  Re-opening of assessment made under VCES - wrong declaration of service under the scheme - Department was of the view that services are to be classified under Works Contract Service and not Construction of Residential Complex Service - HELD THAT:- The facts of the case reveal that there is no dispute as to the value of services declared by the respondents. The allegation of mis-declaration is only with respect to classification of the services. The respondent classified the services as Construction of Residential Complex Services whereas department classifies it as Works Contract Service. This is only an issue of interpretation. Construction of residential complex services provides a more specific classification than works contract service and accordingly will prevail over the other classification. Also, the issue covered by the decision ....... + More

---

• 2019 (9) TMI 647
  
  Classification of Services - Business Auxiliary Service or not - contribution made by members which are sugar Mills - demand of service tax alongwith penalty - HELD THAT:- The issue stands covered by the decision in the case of M/S UP CO OPERATIVE SUGAR FACTORIES FEDERATION LTD. VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE & S.T., LUCKNOW [2017 (8) TMI 1004 - CESTAT ALLAHABAD] where it was held that no service tax would be chargeable on the amount being received by the appellant from its Member Sugar Mills - demand set aside - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.

---

• 2019 (9) TMI 584
  
  Validity of Recovery certificate - Rectification of error - error on the face of record or not - Section 74 of the Finance Act, 1994 - HELD THAT:- The petitioner failed to produce the relevant documents and to appear in the adjudication proceedings to make out a case and otherwise the Tribunal did not find mistake apparent on the face of record to rectify it. Rectification can be done when there is a defect apparent on the face of the record and to be rectified - there is no defect of nature which could have been rectified by entertaining the application under Section 74 of the Act of 1994. The application under Section 74 of the Act of 1994 is dismissed - petition dismissed.

---

• 2019 (9) TMI 583
  
  Classification of services - Business Auxiliary Services or not - amounts received by the Appellants from the vehicle manufacturer/ dealer and accounted by them in their book of accounts as subvention income - Case of appellant is that since the subvention income is nothing but interest against the advances the same should not be subjected to service tax - recovery of amount not/short paid. Whether the amounts received by the Appellants from the vehicle manufacturer/ dealer and accounted by them in their book of accounts as subvention income should be subjected to service tax under the category of ‘Business Auxiliary Services’ as defined by Section 65 (19) of Finance Act, 1994? HELD THAT:- We are not in agreement with the submissions made by the appellants. Once we hold that the amounts received by the appellants as “sub....... + More

---

• 2019 (9) TMI 582
  
  Rejection of Refund claim - time limitation - relevant date - Rule 5 of the CCR, 2004 - HELD THAT:- The relevant date for the purposes of deciding the time-limit for consideration of refund claims under Rule 5 of the CCR has been held to be the end of the quarter in which the FIRC is received in cases where the refund claims are filed on a quarterly basis and this finding is required to be applied to these cases as well since no contrary decision or order is placed on record. Reliance placed in the case of C.C.E., Cus. & S.T., Bengaluru Vs. M/s. Span Infotech (India) Pvt. Ltd. [2018 (2) TMI 946 - CESTAT BANGALORE] where it was held that in respect of export of services, the relevant date for purposes of deciding the time limit for consideration of refund claims under Rule 5 of the CCR may be taken as the end of the quarter in which the FIRC is received, in cases where the refund claims are filed on a quarterly basis. Refund allowed - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.

---

• 2019 (9) TMI 581
  
  Renting of immovable property service - Demand of Service Tax - CBEC vide DoF No. 334/01/2007-TRU dated 28.02.2007 - HELD THAT:- There is substantial merit in the argument of the appellant that the entire scheme was devised and executed much before the levy of service tax was introduced under the head of renting of immovable property service and therefore, the allegation that the appellant disguised the receipt of rent as non-refundable contribution is totally misplaced. A perusal of the SCN shows that there is no evidence whatsoever to support the allegation that what was collected was in fact rent and not non-refundable contribution. It is also seen that the entire scheme was devised under the supervision of Ministry of Textiles and it’s representatives. In these circumstances the allegation appears to totally baseless - demand is....... + More

---

• 2019 (9) TMI 580
  
  Classification of services - Cargo Handling Service or port service - appellant has been providing the service of stevedoring service at Karwar Port and discharging the goods from the vessel to the wharf - HELD THAT:- The services rendered by the appellant does not fall in the category of Cargo Handling Service prior to 1.7.2003. Further, during the impugned period, the services rendered by the appellant fall in the category of Port Service and not Cargo Handling Service as held by the apex court in the case of DCCE vs. Sushil & Co. [2016 (4) TMI 987 - SUPREME COURT] and also clarified by the Board Circular dated 1.8.2002 - demand of service tax on Cargo Handling Service for the period 16.8.2002 to 30.6.2003 is not sustainable in law. Time Limitation - HELD THAT:- The entire demand is also barred by limitation because the show-cause n....... + More

---

• 2019 (9) TMI 531
  
  Valuation - inclusion of reimbursable expenses in assessable value - C&F Agent service - HELD THAT:- The Commissioner (Appeals) though has set aside the demand on TDS and on reimbursement of certain expenditure but he has not given any specific finding on each of the reimbursable expenses viz. Godown rent, damage allowance, loading charges and demurrage charges - Further, all these expenses were reimbursed by the appellant for the various purposes incurred for carrying on the business of C&F Agent Service. The impugned order to the extent of Service Tax on reimbursement is liable to be set aside - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.

---

• 2019 (9) TMI 530
  
  Classification of services - Supply of Tangible Goods service or otherwise - appellant had received income under the head “Gas Connection Charges” from Industrial, Commercial and Domestic customers and perusal of the sale agreements and invoices, revealed that such charges were collected for supply of pipes and measuring equipments at the time of providing new gas connections to the customers - recovery alongwith Interest and penalty - benefit of cum-tax value. HELD THAT:- The service should be provided by any person to any other person for use of that person. In the present case, the appellant is distributing gas to its customers through pipes and for this purpose, it has installed an equipment called SKID at the customers’ site. It is true that the equipment is installed at the site of customer and at the cost the cust....... + More

---

• 2019 (9) TMI 469
  
  Recall of an order - rectification of mistake - non-speaking order - case of appellant is that the conclusion of this Bench that the appellant had rendered other than legal services is an apparent mistake - HELD THAT:- There is no mention nor discussion as to the applicability or otherwise of various decisions relied on by the appellant in the impugned final order - There is no dispute that non-consideration of a judgment of the jurisdictional High Court or Supreme Court is itself a mistake/error on the face of the very order which could be rectified. Apparently, there is no discussion also on various documents like invoices etc., relied on by the applicant and furnished in the paper compilation, suffice it to say that non-consideration of the same amounts to passing a non-speaking order. The impugned final order is recalled and the Registry is directed to relist the appeal for fresh hearing in due course - application allowed.

---

• 2019 (9) TMI 464
  
  Validity of show cause notice - Audit objections were already settled - Erection Commissioning and Installation Service - availment of abatement on job-work - benefit of N/N. 19/2003 dated 21.08.2003 as amended and N/N. 1/2006-ST dated 01.03.2006 - the objection was raised on the ground that the appellant has not sold any goods and material while providing services to the appellant, but, have received only the amount on job work done by them vide audit objection dated 17.01.2007. HELD THAT:- As the audit objection raised by the revenue has already been settled by them on 18.05.2007, in that circumstances, on the same audit objection, show cause notice cannot be issued to the appellant on 28.07.2009. Therefore, the whole of the demand on the basis of said objection is not sustainable and is also time barred. Benefit of N/N. 19/2003 dated 2....... + More

---

• 2019 (9) TMI 463
  
  Commercial or Industrial Short payment of service tax - Construction Services - Work Contract Services - demand of differential service tax - case of appellant is that they have provided service alongwith material and have paid VAT thereon - HELD THAT:- As it is a fact on record that the appellant is paying VAT on the works contract amount, in that circumstances, the appellant has rightly paid service tax @2% of the value of works contract. Thus, the appellant is not required to pay further service tax on their activity and whatever service tax has been paid by the appellant is the correct payment of service tax payable by the appellant. Demand do not sustain - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.

---

• 2019 (9) TMI 462
  
  Classification of services - health services or support services of business or commerce? - revenue sharing basis - agreement with various doctors/consultants on revenue sharing basis whereby a part of the doctor‟s/consultants fee is retained by them in lieu of providing administrative support to them - HELD THAT:- The issue has been settled by this Tribunal in the case of M/S SIR GANGA RAM HOSPITAL, BOMBAY HOSPITAL & MEDICAL RESEARCH CENTRE, APPOLLO HOSPITALS, M/S MAX HEALTH CARE INSTITUTE LTD VERSUS CCE DELHI-I, CCE&ST INDORE, CCE&ST RAIPUR, CST NEW DELHI AND CST DELHI VERSUS M/S INDRAPRASTHA MEDICAL CORPORATION LTD [2017 (12) TMI 509 - CESTAT NEW DELHI] where it was held that the service provided by the respondent hospital would merit classification under Health Care Services extended to the patients. The appellant had not provid....... + More

---

• 2019 (9) TMI 413
  
  Levy of penalty u/s 76 and 77 of FA - taxability of Renting of Immovable Property Services - non payment of tax under Bonafide belief - no suppression of facts - HELD THAT:- The undisputed facts are that the appellant is a local authority and hence, there can be no issue as to suppression of any facts and that too, with an intent to evade any tax. Further, though the activity of renting of building is not a statutory function, the building has been rented to earn revenue to perform the statutory functions entrusted on the appellant under Article 243W of the Constitution of India. Further, the bona fide belief of the appellant can be vouched from the Circular No. 13052/2016/D2 dated 03.05.2017 issued by the Commissioner of Municipal Administration to all the Municipal Commissioners clarifying the exemption available under Sl. No. 39 of Meg....... + More

---

• 2019 (9) TMI 395
  
  Taxability - Health Services - appellants M/s Vivek Sewa Samiti received amount of approximately ₹ 1.5 crores & M/s Gayatri Hospital received amount of approximately ₹ 82 lakhs from M/s ICICI Lombard General Insurance Company for providing health services to members of society who were below the poverty line under ‘Rastriya Swastha Bima Yojana’ - period from 01.07.2010 to 30.04.2011 - HELD THAT:- The requirement in the definition of said service is that the treatment is provided by service provider and payment is made by insurance company directly to the service provider then it satisfies the definition of health services provided under Section 65(105) (zzzzo) of Finance Act, 1994. The appellants during the relevant period had provided said services - demand of service tax upheld - appeal dismissed - decided against appellant.

---

• 2019 (9) TMI 330
  
  Permission for withdrawal of appeal - monetary amount involved in the appeal - activity of providing erection, commissioning and installation services/work contract services - HELD THAT:- At the time of hearing, learned counsel for the appellant admits that in view of instructions dated 22.8.2019 issued by Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue, Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs (Judicial Cell) the instant appeal would not be maintainable before this Court, as demand amount i.e. 11, 20, 077/- for the period from 2009-10 to 2012-13 and ₹ 59, 80, 109 alongwith applicable interest and penalty for the period 2013-14 is to be recovered, which is below the monetary limit of ₹ 1 Crore. Appeal dismissed as withdrawn.

---

• 2019 (9) TMI 329
  
  Permission for withdrawal of appeal - Monetary amount involved in the appeal - Excess utilization of CENVAT Credit - It is alleged that respondent was entitled to utilize cenvat credit upto 20% of the service tax payable, whereas it was utilizing cenvat credit upto 100% of service tax payable - HELD THAT:- At the time of hearing, learned counsel for the appellant admits that in view of instructions dated 22. 8. 2019 issued by Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue, Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs (Judicial Cell) the instant appeal would not be maintainable before this Court, as demand amount i. e. 94, 57, 161/- is to be recovered, which is below the monetary limit of ₹ 1 Crore. Appeal dismissed as withdrawn.

---