Home Case Index All Cases Service Tax 2016 2016 2016 (11) Service Tax - 2016 (11) 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 192 Records

• 2016 (11) TMI 1752 - CESTAT DELHI
  

  Refund of service tax - case of petitioner is that invoices produced by them in respect of detention charges which are for storage and warehousing of the goods are not cleared and does not establish that the same are for the detention charges - HELD THAT:- In as much as the legal issue is decided in favour of the assessee, the impugned orders in both the cases is set aside and the matter remanded to the original adjudicating authority for examination of the documents. As the refund claim is involved, we expect the adjudicating authority to do the needful as early as possible and preferably within a period of three months from today. Both the appeals are disposed of in above manner.

  Appeal disposed off by way of remand.

  ---

• 2016 (11) TMI 1746 - CESTAT CHENNAI
  

  Refund claim - confirmation of the adjudication order without appreciating the difficulties of the appellant - Rule 5 of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 - HELD THAT:- The matters are remanded to learned adjudicating authority to grant fair opportunity of hearing to the appellant for pleading both on facts and law as well as evidence. Considering the same, the authority shall resolve the dispute at the grass root.

  Appeal remanded to learned adjudicating authority.

  ---

• 2016 (11) TMI 1692 - SC ORDER
  

  CENVAT Credit - Input services - output transportation - scope of input services - Rule 2(l) of CCR - It was held by High Court that Credit of service tax paid on outward transportation allowed prior to 1.4.2008 - HELD THAT:- Appeal admitted.

  ---

• 2016 (11) TMI 1640 - SC ORDER
  

  Legislative competence for Levy of service tax on preferential location charges while Purchasing a FLAT in the multi-storey group housing project - it was held in the case that no service tax under section 66 of the Act read with Section 65(105)(zzzh) of the Act could be charged in respect of composite contracts such as the ones entered into by the Petitioners with the builder.

  HELD THAT:- Delay condoned - leave granted.

  ---

• 2016 (11) TMI 1624 - SC ORDER
  

  Export of service - Business Auxiliary Service - business of money transfers.

  HELD THAT:- Issue notice.

  ---

• 2016 (11) TMI 1582 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
  

  Removal of Office Objections - Held that:- A week’s time is granted to remove office objections, failing which, the matter shall stand automatically dismissed for default.

  ---

• 2016 (11) TMI 1578 - CESTAT CHENNAI
  

  Non-payment of service tax liability confirmed by lower authority in adjudication - Held that:- Appellant has not really indicated as to the exact nature of grievance that he has against the impugned order. It will be in the fitness of things that appellant awaits recomputation of tax liability and penalty as directed by Commissioner (Appeals) - appeal dismissed as being devoid of merits.

  ---

• 2016 (11) TMI 1571 - CESTAT NEW DELHI
  

  Valuation - Commercial Training and Coaching Centre Services - whether the value of the study material, which they have sold by raising separate invoices, is required to be added in the value of the services being provided by them?

  Held that:- The issue stands decided in the same appellant’s case for the earlier period Cerebral Learning Solutions Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CCE, Indore [2013 (4) TMI 527 - CESTAT NEW DELHI], where it was held that the value of the material collected by the appellant is not required to be added in the value of the services - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.

  ---

• 2016 (11) TMI 1564 - CESTAT NEW DELHI
  

  Works Contract Service - Levy of Service tax - Industrial and construction services - Held that:- The matter needs to be sent back to the original adjudicating authority for fresh examination of issue of leviability of Service Tax on the industrial and construction services done under the work contract prior to 1.6.2007, following the judgement in the case of Commissioner of Central Excise, Kerala vs Larsen & Toubro Ltd. [2015 (8) TMI 749 - SUPREME COURT] - appeal allowed by way of remand.

  ---

• 2016 (11) TMI 1555 - CESTAT ALLAHABAD
  

  Works contract - construction of residential complex - Demand of service tax - appellant-assessee had constructed the flats for Saharanpur Development Authority (S.D.A.) under "Manyaver Kanshiramji Shahri Garib Awas Yojana" for the Government of U.P. - Held that: - as per the scheme, houses were allotted without any consideration, i.e. free of cost to the weaker section of the society on lease basis. Ownership of the flats is always with the Government of U.P. - it is covered by the Explanation (a) of the said Section 65(95a). Thus, the complex is not subjected to Service Tax on the basis of work contract as residential complex was given without consideration - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.

  ---

• 2016 (11) TMI 1535 - CESTAT NEW DELHI
  

  Refund claim - N/N. 41/2007-ST dated 06/10/07 - denial on the ground that the services are not port services - Held that: - It is an admitted fact on record that the disputed services were provided by the service provider in respect of exportation of goods by the appellant. Since, those services were provided within the port, the same should be considered as port service for the purpose of grant of refund in terms of Notification dated 06/10/2007 - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.

  ---

• 2016 (11) TMI 1533 - CESTAT NEW DELHI
  

  Valuation - Liability of service tax - printed material supplied to the students - coaching services - Held that: - in appellant's own case the issue has come up before the Tribunal in M/s Cerebral Learning Solutions Pvt. Ltd. Versus CCE, Indore [2013 (4) TMI 527 - CESTAT NEW DELHI], where it was held that sale value not to be included - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.

  ---

• 2016 (11) TMI 1487 - SC ORDER
  

  Condonation of delay - CENVAT Credit - whether circular is binding upon the revenue - service tax on GTA service availed by the appellant for outward transportation of the goods from the factory to the customer - the decision in the case of The Commissioner of Central Excise Service Tax Bengaluru-IV, Versus Ultra Tech Cement Ltd. [2016 (7) TMI 1080 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT], where it was held that no substantial questions of law would arise since the availment of CENVAT credit is expressly made so permissible by the circular issued by the competent authority and the appellate authority having found that all conditions of the circular were satisfied - Held that: - delay condoned - leave granted.

  ---

• 2016 (11) TMI 1486 - CESTAT KOLKATA
  

  CENVAT credit - According to the Revenue, the appellant paid 85% of the bill amount to the TV Channels for booking the space and 15% was paid to M/s. Pressman Advertising & Marketing Ltd.. Hence, they are not entitled to avail the entire amount of credit - Held that: - There is no dispute that the amount of service tax was paid by M/s. Pressman Advertising & Marketing Ltd. under the category of advertising services. In my considered view, as the Revenue had not disputed the payment of service tax by the advertising agency as mentioned in the bill, the jurisdictional officers of the residual unit has no authority to bifurcate the taxable value - denial of credit cannot be sustained - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.

  ---

• 2016 (11) TMI 1481 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI
  

  Refund claim - various input services - denial on the ground that the services do not fall within the scope of Port Services - Held that: - irrespective of the taxable service, if the same are provided within the port for exportation of goods, the refund claim can be processed in terms of the N/N. 41/2007 dated 06.10.2007 - refund claim denied by the authorities below on the disputed services namely, inland Haulage charges, Freight outward charges, BL charges and CHA charges is not in conformity with the provisions of the Notification dated 06.10.2007 and to that extent the impugned order is set aside - appeal allowed.

  Refund claim - fumigation charges - denial on the ground that the appellant had not produced the written agreement entered with the overseas buyer for providing such service - Held that: - Since the ld. Advocate concedes that the agreement has been entered into and the same is available with the appellant, I am of the view that the matter should go back to the original authority for verification of the agreement entered into by the appellant with its overseas buyer - matter on remand.

  Appeal allowed in part and part matter on remand.

  ---

• 2016 (11) TMI 1480 - CESTAT KOLKATA
  

  Security Agency Service - the Respondent, in respect of some of their clients, failed to collect Service Tax and deposit the same to the Govt. Exchequer - intent to evade duty - Held that: - the concurrent finding of fact arrived at by the lower appellate authority that in absence of any plea of deliberate attempt to evade tax, a ground is made out for non-imposition of penalty under section 78 of the Act, is justified and does not suffer from any perversity or arbitrariness so as to call for interference - appeal dismissed - decided against Revenue.

  ---

• 2016 (11) TMI 1478 - CESTAT KOLKATA
  

  Repairing and maintenance service - Scope of service - Franchisee Service - Held that: - the appellants’ services became taxable under the category of ‘repairing and maintenance service’ w.e.f. 16.06.2005. The definition of ‘repairing and maintenance service’ has been changed w.e.f. 16.06.2005 - Mere delay in payment of service tax, in my opinion, cannot be construed as suppression or mis-declaration of facts with intent to evade payment of tax. Further, the bonafideness of the appellant is evident from the fact of their getting registered with the Service Tax Department soon after change in the scope of definition on repairing and maintenance service and also from the fact that the entire receipt relating to the repair and retreading of tyres during the relevant period, had duly been reflected in their audited balance sheet.

  Penalty u/s 77 upheld - penalty u/s 78 set aside - appeal allowed in part.

  ---

• 2016 (11) TMI 1460 - CESTAT KOLKATA
  

  Simultaneous penalty u/s 76 and 78 prior to 16.05.2008 - Held that: - Even if technically, the scope of Sections 76 and 78 is different, penalty under Section 76 may not be justified if penalty had already been imposed under Section 78 - appeal dismissed - decided against Revenue.

  ---

• 2016 (11) TMI 1458 - CESTAT KOLKATA
  

  Penalty u/s 78 of FA, 1994 - case of appellant is that Non-compliance to the provisions of Service Tax is merely because the appellant was not aware about the statutory provisions of the service tax - Held that: - when the assessee is not disputing his liability for discharging the statutory obligations and has paid the entire tax along with the interest and thereafter discharging his obligations as a taxpayer, in view of the provisions of Section 73 (4A) the proceeding should be deemed to have been concluded - penalty set aside - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.

  ---

• 2016 (11) TMI 1451 - CESTAT CHENNAI
  

  CENVAT credit - various input services - denial on the ground of nexus - Held that: - The explanation given by the appellant about the periodicity of the availment of the service and nature of service availed, throws light that those are integrally connected with the manufacturing activity and indispensable - credit allowed.

  Revenue may conduct enquiry in respect of Service tax credit taken based on incomplete distribution invoice issued by their corporate offices to ascertain the genuineness of the services and if satisfied about the genuineness thereof, there should not be denial of Cenvat credit of the appropriate claim by the appellant - appeal allowed in part and part matter on remand.

  ---

12345........ 10