Home Case Index All Cases Service Tax 2009 2009 This

Law	-- All -- GST Income Tax Benami Property 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 Appellate Tribunal Tribunal Appellate authority for Advance Ruling Advance Ruling Authority National Financial Reporting Authority Competition Commission of India ANTI-PROFITEERING AUTHORITY Commission Central Government Board DISTRICT/ SESSIONS Court Commissioner / Appellate Authority Other
Citation	--Year-- 2024 2023 2022 2021 2020 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 1500 Records

• 2009 (12) TMI 917 - SC ORDER
  

  Airport Service - user fee - The facts and circumstances of the case and the evidence clearly prove beyond doubt that the users fee collected is only for enhancing the revenue of the Airport and not for any service rendered to outgoing international passengers - the decision in the case of COMMISSIONER, CENTRAL EXCISE Versus COCHIN INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT LTD. [2009 (7) TMI 120 - KERALA HIGH COURT] contested, where it was held that no service tax is payable for the users fee collected by the respondent - Held that: - the decision in the above case upheld - SLP dismissed - decided against Revenue.

  ---

• 2009 (12) TMI 851 - SC ORDER
  

  Demand of service tax - Clearing and forwarding Agent - Supreme Court dismissed Revenue where High Court held that service tax is not payable of mere forwarding activity (i.e. handling and distribution of the products).

  ---

• 2009 (12) TMI 850 - SC ORDER
  

  Demand of service tax - Import of service tax - Supreme Court dismissed appeal where High Court [2008 (12) TMI 41 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT] held that Provisions of Rule 2(1)(d)(iv) can not create any tax liability which is not authorized by law. Before insertion of section 66A with effect from 18-4-2006, there was no authority to levy service tax on Import of service. Explanation below section 65(105) did not give any authority to levy service tax on import of services.

  ---

• 2009 (12) TMI 694 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
  

  Whether petitioner has given false particulars with regard to payment of ₹ 6 lacs?

  Held that:- The petitioner, in fact, has made the payment of ₹ 6 lacs as the payment is duly supported by the Bank entries as well as duly receipted challans and hence there is no dispute about the payment of ₹ 6 lacs. If this payment of ₹ 6 lacs is considered then admittedly the balance amount of ₹ 8,737/- remains outstanding and on that basis the petitioner is entitled to avail the benefit of the scheme. Thus, the petitioner’s application cannot be rejected on the ground that the petitioner has supplied false information with regard to payment of ₹ 6 lacs.

  The impugned order passed by the Respondent No. 2 is hereby quashed and set aside and the respondent No. 2 is hereby directed to issue certificate after verification of the payment of ₹ 6 lacs.

  ---

• 2009 (12) TMI 693 - CESTAT MUMBAI
  
  ... ...
  ... ... ..... the same says that the current liabilities are to the tune of Rs. 4,08,43,965/-. As per this certificate, this is the current liability position as on 11-8-2009. The certificate further indicates that one of the debtors has agreed to pay an amount of Rs. 2.65 crores in monthly installments to the appellant. There is, however, no indication of the particulars of such monthly installments. In the first instance, this certificate of the Chartered Accountant, which was issued on the appellant rsquo s specific request, apparently for the specific purpose of this application, is not supported by requisite accounts. Secondly, this certificate is not a pointer to what is claimed to be lsquo financial hardships rsquo of the appellant. The plea of financial difficulties stands unsubstantiated. 6. The appellant has to pre-deposit the amount of Rs. 50 lakhs. In the interest of justice, we grant them 4 weeks time to deposit this amount. Report compliance on 18-1-2010. (Dictated in court)

  ---

• 2009 (12) TMI 691 - SC ORDER
  

  Demand of service tax - Consulting Engineer - Supreme Court dismissed appeal where CESTAT held that service provided by the foreign companies who has no office in India demand of tax will not be liable to service tax prior to 1.1.2005.

  ---

• 2009 (12) TMI 631 - KERALA HIGH COURT
  

  Return of Refund application - Claim of refund of service tax paid on renting of immovable property - petitioner points out that Section 11B of the Central Excise Act stipulates time limit of a period of one year for claiming refund of any duty paid. Therefore, if the refund application submitted by the petitioner was not entertained by the authority concerned, the same may cause prejudice to the petitioner, because the petitioner will be precluded from claiming refund raising the question of limitation - Held that:- as per Section 11BB interest is payable only on amounts which is ordered to be refunded, within a period of three months from the date of application onwards. Therefore the question of payment of refund will arise only if the application is allowed and an order is passed, respondent is directed to take back application and to dispose of the same on merits, writ petition is disposed of

  ---

• 2009 (12) TMI 607 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI
  

  Application for stay - Rule 28A of CEGAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982 - application filed by Revenue does not carry out the mandate of statute for which that calls for rejection in limine - Once the application is rejected on such account, there is no necessity to go through any other aspect till a fresh application is made rectifying the defects in the application - The stay application is rejected

  ---

• 2009 (12) TMI 606 - CESTAT, CHENNAI
  

  Cenvat credit on dutiable goods and traded items - No separate accounts - Rule 6 of the Cenvat Credit Rules - It is clear from the above provisions that the Central Government has power to make rules to provide for credit of duty paid on goods and credit of service tax paid on services used in or in relation to the manufacture of excisable goods - There is no power with the Government to make rules to provide for credit in respect of service tax paid on input services which is used neither in or in relation to manufacture of excisable goods nor for providing taxable output service - the argument of the Ld. Advocate that such credit is available in respect of input service used in relation to traded goods is prima facie not acceptable as neither the existing Rules provide for it nor the Government has power to make such Rules under Section 37(2) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 and Section 94 of the Finance Act, 1994 - Decided against the assessee by way of direction to deposit Rs. 15 Lakhs

  ---

• 2009 (12) TMI 573 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI
  

  Penalty – Rent-a –cab service – service tax levy debatable for some time – Appellant brought under service tax levy after search by Department – Penalty under section 78 of Finance Act, 1994 imposable - matter is remanded to the Adjudicating Authority for testing facts of the Appellant

  ---

• 2009 (12) TMI 568 - CESTAT, BANGALORE
  

  Waiver of pre-deposit – restoration of stay petition - stay petition which was dismissed for non- prosecution – assessee submit that due to his illness, the stay petition could not be prosecuted – stay petition restored

  ---

• 2009 (12) TMI 562 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI
  

  Waiver of pre-deposit - Rebate claim – unjust enrichment – rebate of service tax on input services used in export of services – rebate of Rs. 2,50,54,831/- has been erroneously paid in cash and the same should have been credited to the Consumer Welfare Fund – Held that: - Commissioner has not held that the rebate claim was not admissible - only ordered recovery from the Appellant and crediting to the Consumer Welfare Fund - Applicant has made out a case for waiver of pre-deposit

  ---

• 2009 (12) TMI 552 - CESTAT, BANGALORE
  

  Waiver of pre-deposit - reversal of Cenvat credit - appellant has already reversed the entire credit taken by them during the proceedings before the adjudicating authority - appellant has not received any consideration or money - What they received is diesel and explosives for the purpose of use in machinery for removal of over-burden using their own capital equipments - provisions of Section 67 may not get attracted in this case, because there is no consideration as such received by the appellant - Rule 5 could be invoked only in case the value of services incurred by the service provider in course of providing taxable services, is borne by service receiver - expenses for services are incurred by the service receiver - Application for waiver of pre-deposit of balance amounts involved is allowed

  ---

• 2009 (12) TMI 551 - CESTAT, AHMEDABAD
  

  Penalty - appellant did not contest the Service tax liability but deposited the same and also paid 25% of the Service tax as penalty, shows that the appellant is not interested in litigation but would like to abide by the law - allow the appeal by invoking Section 80 of Finance Act, 1994 and set aside the impugned order as regards penalty under Section 76 of Finance Act, 1994

  ---

• 2009 (12) TMI 547 - CESTAT, MUMBAI
  

  Unjust enrichment - refund claim on the ground that they have registered for GTA - Service Tax was not payable by the appellant but they have paid it wrongly to the department - Service Tax received by the appellant has not returned to the transporter - unjust enrichment – Held that: - applicant willing to file an affidavit, indemnity bond and undertaking to the effect that on receiving the refund amount, the same will be reimbursed to the transporter - matter is remanded back to the original adjudicating authority - appeal is allowed by way of remand

  ---

• 2009 (12) TMI 545 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI
  

  Demand of service tax - Residential Complex service – water tank construction – demand of service tax assailed on the ground that overhead water tank construct as per work order of housing board – Revenue contended that appeal not maintainable as appeal dismissed by Commissioner (Appeals) for default in pre-deposit – and absence of request for waiver of pre-deposit - no Appellant shall prefer to cause prejudice to himself. But for ignorance of law – matter remanded back to Commissioner (Appeals) to decide the appeal on merits – disposal of appeal accordingly

  ---

• 2009 (12) TMI 540 - CESTAT, CHENNAI
  

  Condonation of delay - in filing the appeal - delay is 489 days - assessees were under a bona fide belief that since the Asstt. Commissioner's order confirming a demand for a certain period was appealed against before the Commissioner (Appeals), successfully, and the appeal is now pending before the Tribunal – Held that: - demand which was dropped by the AC was confirmed by the Order-in-Revision - assessees were required to prefer appeal within the statutory period of limitation against the Order-in-Revision - appeal is dismissed

  ---

• 2009 (12) TMI 539 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI
  

  Refund – service tax paid in relation to exported goods - Board permits the refund relating to quarter ending March, 2008 to June, 2008 can be filed till 31-12-08 - quarters referred treated as quarters ending March, 2008 and quarters ending June, 2008 - claim is within the time limit prescribed - remand the matter to the original authority

  ---

• 2009 (12) TMI 530 - CESTAT, KOLKATA
  

  Waiver of pre-deposit of Service tax - Demand of Service tax and penalty - G.T.A. Service - observing the credit of Service tax paid on outward G.T.A. Service - Held that: - No financial hardship is pleaded in the Stay Application - not a fit case for waiver of pre-deposit of Service tax - it is not a fit case for waiver of pre-deposit of Service tax - Applicants are directed to deposit an amount of Service tax - On deposit of the amount the pre-deposit of amount of penalty is waived and recovery of the same is stayed during pendency of the Appeal - Appeal is disposed of accordingly

  ---

• 2009 (12) TMI 475 - CESTAT, BANGALORE
  

  Transport of goods by road service - the appellants submits that they are engaged in laying, erection and commissioning of pipelines for water supply projects of the Government of Andhra Pradesh. They are assessed to APVAT under the category of 'works contract'. On stay application, assessee discharged said liability utilizing Cenvat credit and sought for waiver of pre-deposit. Held that - assessee's own case waived the pre deposit. Thus in this case also waived the pre-deposit.

  ---

12345........ 75