Home Case Index All Cases Service Tax 2011 2011 2011 (1) Service Tax - 2011 (1) 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 122 Records

• 2011 (1) TMI 1486 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
  
  ... ...
  ... ... ..... as been pointed out to indicate that the assessee is otherwise not entitled to the benefit of the notification. In the memo of appeal a ground has been raised that the assessee was promoting the business of a registered/branded entity and was liable to pay service tax from the first amount. However, no such contention appears to have been raised before the Tribunal. Moreover, a perusal of the show cause notice indicates that no such ground has been taken in the show cause notice also. In the circumstances, since the said ground does not arise out of the impugned order of the Tribunal, it is not permissible for the appellant to take such a plea for the first time before this Court, more so, since the same would also involve disputed questions of fact. 7. In view of the above discussion, it is not possible to state that the impugned order gives rise to any question of law, much less, a substantial question of law, warranting interference. The appeal is, accordingly, dismissed.

  ---

• 2011 (1) TMI 1449 - DELHI HIGH COURT
  
  ... ...
  ... ... ..... ith the preliminary objection of the petitioner that the show cause notice could not have been issued in the obtaining factual matrix regard being had to the factual scenario. Mr. Bhatia as well as Mr.Mukesh Anand fairly stated that the adjudicating authority shall dwell upon the said facet as a preliminary issue. In view of the aforesaid, we direct the adjudicating authority, the second respondent herein, to decide the matter with regard to the jurisdictional facet taking into consideration the stand and stance put forth by the petitioner after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner or its authorized representative. Needless to say, the order shall be a speaking one. The adjudicating authority shall deal with the matter, as directed hereinabove within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of the order passed today. The writ petition is, accordingly, disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. Order dasti under the signature of the Court Master.

  ---

• 2011 (1) TMI 1323 - SUPREME COURT
  

  Condonation of delay - inordinate delay of 242 days - Architectural Services – Import of Service – Rule 2(1)(d)(iv).

  ---

• 2011 (1) TMI 1068 - CESTAT, BANGALORE
  

  Waiver of pre-deposit of Service Tax - refund claim rejected on the ground appellant had not filed all the required documents along with - Held that:- It is undisputed that the documents were filed along with deficiency memo. It is also undisputed that the refund claim is otherwise maintainable. In view of this, in my considered view, the appellant has made out a prima facie case for waiver of pre-deposit of the amount involved.

  ---

• 2011 (1) TMI 1067 - CESTAT, CHENNAI
  

  Waiver of pre-deposit of service - tax demand on the ground that the assessees were carrying out only completion and finishing services of lining/tiling ducts etc. and not undertaking industrial construction - Held that:- Commissioner (Appeals) has correctly listed out the nature of activities carried out by the assessees. Prima facie these would amount to completion and finishing services and therefore no prima facie case for total waiver can be said to have been made out by the assessees.

  Assessee directed to pre-deposit of Rs. 1,50,000/- towards service tax demand within a period of eight weeks.

  ---

• 2011 (1) TMI 1066 - CESTAT, MUMBAI
  

  Waiver of pre-deposit and stay of recovery - management consultancy service - secondment charges paid in foreign currency as consideration for management consultancy service was not disclosed to the department - appellant has submitted that, even if it be assumed that a taxable service was provided by M/s. British Gas to MGL, any amount of service tax could not be demanded from MGL for the period of dispute inasmuch as this period is prior to 18-4-2006, the date on which Section 66A was inserted also an Indian recipient of a taxable service provided by a non-resident person having no office in India cannot be deemed to be a service provider for purposes of payment of service tax for any period prior to 18-4-2006 - Held that:- Appellant has only a debatable case and has not established a foolproof case for complete waiver of pre-deposit , appellant has to make pre-deposit of a reasonable part of the amount of service tax for purposes of Section 35F of the Central Excise Act

  ---

• 2011 (1) TMI 1064 - CESTAT, BANGALORE
  

  Waiver of pre-deposit - Appellants herein along with fifteen others had taken various input services against a single invoice in respect of each credit relating to different services - Held that:- As found in stay order [2010 (10) TMI 403 - CESTAT, BANGALORE] the Tribunal had waived pre-deposit of similar dues in respect of 10 other appellants subject to the condition that the appellants did not utilize the impugned credit which was modified and the appellants allowed to freeze 75% of the credit demanded which alone was available in their accounts and to make good the balance 25% with the credit as and when earned before the appeal is decided. Thus these applications in the present case are allowed on the same terms as regards freezing of the available 75% credit with similar undertaking by 9-2-2011 before the Assistant Registrar of this Bench.

  ---

• 2011 (1) TMI 1063 - CESTAT, KOLKATA
  

  Waiver of pre-deposit of service tax - business auxiliary service - The dispute is in respect of activity of procuring orders on behalf of the foreign company - contention of assessee that as the service is provided outside India, therefore, the appellants are not liable for service tax on this activity - Held that:- Board’s Circular wherein it has been clarified that in case the benefits of these services accrue outside India, it is to be treated as exports of service. Pre-deposit of service tax and penalties is waived and recovery of the same is stayed during pendency of the appeal. Stay petition is allowed.

  ---

• 2011 (1) TMI 977 - CESTAT, KOLKATA
  

  Demand of Service Tax - Commissioner(Appeals) remanded the matter to the adjudicating authority to decide the issue afresh after allowing the inspection of the record - contention of Revenue that Commissioner(Appeals) has no power to remand w.e.f. 11.05.2001 - Held that:- High Court in the case of CC, Amritsar v. M/s.Enkay (India) Rubber Co. Pvt.Ltd. (2007 (3) TMI 276 - HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH) held that after amendment to Section 35A(3) of Act Commissioner(Appeals) has no power to remand the matter to the adjudicating authority. Central Board of Excise & Customs issued instruction dated 25.07.2008 to this effect also. merit in the contentions of the Revenue that Commissioner(Appeals) has no power to remand after the amendment to Section 35A(3) of the Central Excise Act.

  As respondents made a request for copies of seized records before the adjudicating authority. The Respondents are entitled for copies of relied upon documents and also the un-relied upon documents which were seized.

  ---

• 2011 (1) TMI 925 - CESTAT, KOLKATA
  

  Commissioner's (Appeals) power to remand - Revenue relied upon the decision of the Hon‘ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case B.C. Kataria (2007 - TMI - 1757 - High Court ,Punjab and Haryana ) held that after amendment to Section 35A of the Act, the Commissioner (Appeals) has no power to remand - amendment to Section 35A of Central Excise Act whereby the power to remand by the Commissioner (Appeals) has been withdrawn, order is set aside and the matter is remanded to the Commissioner (Appeals) to decide the appeal afresh after affording an opportunity of hearing to the Respondents. The appeal is disposed off by way of remand.

  ---

• 2011 (1) TMI 872 - CESTAT, CHENNAI
  

  Cenvat credit - Goods Transport Agency (GTA)services - The respondents have played dual roles – first, as deemed service provider, they paid the service Tax on GTA services availed by them. Second, as service recipient they have taken credit of Service Tax paid on the GTA services, which are input services for them - If the Service Tax on GTA service was paid by the provider, based on the invoice issued by the said provider, the Service Tax so paid shall be admissible as credit to the respondents. The credit payment mentioned in the invoice to be issued by the service provider shall be based on TR-6 challan/GAR-7 by which the said provider of services paid the Service Tax - In the present case, as payer of Service Tax, the respondents have used the TR-6 challan/GAR-7 for payment of Service Tax - The payment of Service Tax on the input service is not in dispute - The utilization of the input service by the respondents is also not in dispute - Decided in favour of assessee

  ---

• 2011 (1) TMI 870 - CESTAT, BANGALORE
  

  Clearing & Forwarding (C & F) Agents - whether the amounts charged by the appellants other than service charges can be considered as actual expenses incurred and reimbursable - Held that: appellant has not produced any evidence before us nor before the lower authorities. Since the claim of the learned Chartered Accountant is that they will be able to produce the evidence that the amounts which were not included in the gross amounts for discharge of service tax were reimbursed amount, we are of the view that a chance should be given to the assessee to substantiate the same by evidence before the lower authorities - Appeals are allowed

  ---

• 2011 (1) TMI 865 - CESTAT, CHENNAI
  

  Demand - Maintenance or Repair Services and Erection, Commissioning & Installation Services - Ignorance of law - Excess tax paid by the appellant this issue is not raised before the original authority - Notification No. 6/2005-ST dated 1.3.2005 - Since the Commissioner (Appeals) has found that it is a fit case for invoking Section 80 of the Finance Act and since the conduct of the assessee in paying excess Service Tax and interest shows lack of knowledge of service Tax law, I deem it appropriate to extend full benefit under Section 80 of the Finance Act, 1994 and set aside the penalty under Section 78 also which was sustained by the Commissioner (Appeals) - Appeal is allowed by way of remand to original authority to consider the issue of excess payment of service tax.

  ---

• 2011 (1) TMI 864 - CESTAT, AHMEDABAD
  

  Demand of service tax based on reconciliation statement - The differences between CAC and computer accounts SLR are different and are reconciled. The service tax was paid and returns filed on the basis of the CAC figures - there were excess payments and in some months, there were short payments and they had adjusted both and whatever differential amount was available, has been paid by them - Even though the learned advocate submitted that there are decisions of the Tribunal holding that such adjustment can be allowed and extended period cannot be invoked in such cases - keeping in view that the appellant is a Public Sector Undertaking of Govt. of India and cannot be attributed malafide intention to evade payment of duty and by taking note of earlier decisions of the Tribunal in the same appellant's cases - Appeal is disposed off

  ---

• 2011 (1) TMI 853 - CESTAT, CHENNAI
  

  Imposition of penalty - The assessees had intimated the Superintendent of Central Excise in-charge of the Tondiarpet Terminal about leasing out of storage tanks and also informed Assistant Commissioner (Central Excise), Chennai-I Commissionerate about the existence of two separate agreements, one for leasing of storage tanks located in their premises and the other for various other services rendered to M/s. CPCL such as de-loading etc. - Therefore, agree with the assessees that the charge and finding of suppression with intention to evade tax is not sustainable - Decided in favour of assessee.

  ---

• 2011 (1) TMI 852 - CESTAT, AHMEDABAD
  

  Intervenor - Locus Standi - Mining Services or Survey and Exploration of Minerals, Oil & Gas - Classification - Rule 41 of CESTAT Rules- in view of the decision of apex court inthe case of UPSRTC as reported in (2011 -TMI - 201649 - Supreem Court of India) - Held that: We do not find any merit in the application filed by GSPC to implead as an intervener and accordingly reject the same.

  ---

• 2011 (1) TMI 845 - CESTAT, CHENNAI
  

  Valuation of taxable services - inclusion of value of free supply - tax has been demanded by inclusion of the value of free supply of materials such as cement and steel in the assessable value of the commercial and industrial construction services - The assessees have made out a strong prima facie case for total waiver in the light of Tribunal's stay order in the case of Gulf Oil Corporation Ltd. Vs CST Hyderabad [2009 -TMI - 201798 - CESTAT, BANGALORE] on similar issue - Stay granted.

  ---

• 2011 (1) TMI 844 - CESTAT, BANGALORE
  

  Export of services - It is the claim of the learned counsel that the entire amount which has been received as commission is in convertible foreign exchange - the issue needs to be appreciated on the factual matrix, as to whether the appellant has received the amount of commission from M/s. UAE Exchange Centre, LLC, Abu Dhabi and M/s. UAE and Money Gram Payment System Inc. USA - Since the evidence of the amount so received in foreign exchange was not produced before the Adjudicating Authority, the Adjudicating Authority came to a conclusion that this service is not export of services - Appeal is allowed by way of remand

  ---

• 2011 (1) TMI 833 - CESTAT, BANGALORE
  

  Abacus coaching - appellants are engaged in the activity of coaching children basing on the ancient Japanese methods of mathematical calculation with the help of an instrument popularly known as "Abacus - the dispute stands decided in favour of the assessee vide our decision in the case of Fast Arithmetic Vs. Asst. Commissioner of C. Ex. & S. T., Bangalore as reported in (2009 -TMI - 34931 - CESTAT, BANGLORE) - Notification No. 9/2003-S.T., dated 20-6-2003 as amended and also Notification No. 24/2004-S.T., dated 10-9-2004 - Held that: there is a specific exemption provided for recreational training institute and vocational training institute. In our view, the activities of the appellant would more appropriately be classified as recreational - Decided in favour of the assessee

  ---

• 2011 (1) TMI 832 - CESTAT, BANGALORE
  

  Cenvat Credit - Inputs services - Rent-a-cab services, repairs & maintenance service, catering services and group insurance service - the service tax paid and availed as Cenvat Credit by the appellant on catering services, rent-a-cab services, group insurance services etc. were considered by this Bench in the case of Stanzen Toyotetsu India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CCE, Bangalore [2008 -TMI - 33381 - CESTAT BANGLORE] - The Division Bench of this Tribunal has held that the credit cannot be denied to the appellant on such services - Decided in favour of assessee.

  ---

12345........ 7