Advanced Search Options
Service Tax - Tribunal - Case Laws
Showing 1 to 20 of 215 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.
- 2014 (12) TMI 1306 - CESTAT CHENNAI
Pre-deposit - building construction activity for educational institution - Held that: - Considering such aspect and also interest of revenue, as an interim measure, the appellant is directed to deposit ₹ 12,00,000/- and report compliance on 30.1.2015.
- 2014 (12) TMI 1285 - CESTAT NEW DELHI
Valuation - includibility - whether the free supplies of material provided by the service recipient to the appellant is includible in the taxable value of the service provided by the appellant or not? - Held that: - similar issue decided in the case of Bhayana Builders Pvt. Ltd. v. CST, Delhi [2013 (9) TMI 294 - CESTAT NEW DELHI (LB)] wherein this Tribunal held that the free supplies of raw material by service recipient is not includible in the taxable value of services - the free supplies by the service recipient is not includible in the taxable services provided by the appellants - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.
- 2014 (12) TMI 1241 - CESTAT BANGALORE
Valuation - determination of amount and time when the consideration was received - Construction of Residential Complex Service - Service tax of ₹ 2,27,94,428/- with interest has been demanded from the appellant on the ground that the amount collected from the buyers towards ‘Undivided Share of Land’ can be taken as consideration attributable to the land owners under the Joint Development Agreement and be subjected to service tax - Held that:- As per Notification No. 36/2010-S.T. dated 28.6.2010, in respect of new services introduced by Budget 2010, if value towards any service has been received before 1.7.2010, service tax on such value is exempted. In this case, the agreement was entered into on 26.4.2010 and on that date the land was handed over, it can be said that consideration of construction of residential complex was received....... + More
- 2014 (12) TMI 1235 - CESTAT MUMBAI
Liability of Service tax - Management Consultancy Service - Whether the running, operating and managing the entire hotel business of M/s. Taj Lands End Ltd., Bandra under a ‘License Agreement’, from the date of agreements up to completion of final purchase of the hotel, would be covered under ‘Management Consultancy Service’ and service tax would be payable on the quantum of Gross Operation Profits earned/retained by the appellants or not. Held that:- the contention of the appellant is convincing that IHCL had entered into a License Agreement with LHPL (later the name of LHPL was changed to Taj Lands End Ltd.) to the effect that the hotel which stood in the name of LHPL was given to IHCL on a license basis to enable the latter to run the hotel on its own. So, although the owner of asset is LHPL, whereas the owner of business of running th....... + More
- 2014 (12) TMI 1234 - CESTAT MUMBAI
Rejection of refund claim - SEZ unit - Refund claim rejected on 3 issues, (1) deficiency in invoices (2) the objection that the impugned service is not mentioned in the authorisation issued by the Unit Approval Committee of the SEZ unit (3) that the assessee has not provided basis for payment of service tax along with the evidence of tax payment for which the refund is being claimed. Held that:- with respect to deficiency noted in the invoice, it is observed that the said invoices are issued by the vendor located outside India, who is not required to follow the procedure prescribed under the Service Tax Rules, 1994. Mere technical discrepancies in the invoices cannot be the ground for denying substantive benefit of refund available to an SEZ unit. It is the policy of the Government to exempt or refund the input taxes incurred by the SEZ U....... + More
- 2014 (12) TMI 1215 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD
Extended period of limitation - Condonation of delay - Appellant filed appeal after the prescribed time limit of two months but within the further period of one month which can be condoned by the Commissioner (Appeals) as per Section 85(3A) of the Finance Act, 1994 - Held that: As per the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Singh Enterprises vs. CCE, Jamshedpur 2007 (12) TMI 11 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA, Commissioner (Appeals) has no power to condone the delay beyond the prescribed period. Therefore,delay cannot be condoned by Commissioner (Appeals). - Decided against the petitioner
- 2014 (12) TMI 1206 - CESTAT CHENNAI
Waiver of pre-deposit - Renting of Immovable Property - Following the judicial discipline and consistency, as directed in previous cases of municipal corporations and also keeping in view the principle laid down by the Apex court, this appellant is directed to make a further deposit of ₹ 40,00,000/- (Rupees forty lakhs only), subject to verification of ₹ 51 lakhs said to have been deposited - stay granted partly.
- 2014 (12) TMI 1197 - CESTAT NEW DELHI
Restoration of appeal - non receipt of notice - Held that:- As prior to 21-2-2014, this matter had been listed for hearing on 20-12-2013 and at that time this matter had been adjourned to 21-2-2014 and the notice in this regard had been issued by Registered post with acknowledgement due on 17-1-2014. There is no document on record to indicate that the notice was not delivered by the postal authorities and was returned undelivered. Once notice for hearing has been issued to an appellant by RPAD in accordance with the provisions of Section 37C of the Central Excise Act 1944, it has to be presumed that the notice has been received by the appellant and if the appellant disputes the receipt of the notice, burden is on him to produce positive evidence regarding non-receipt. Since no such evidence has been produced, the appellant’s plea that the notice was not received cannot be accepted. In view of this, miscellaneous application for restoration of appeal is dismissed.
- 2014 (12) TMI 1186 - CESTAT NEW DELHI
Waiver of pre-deposit - Valuation - re-imbursement expenses - Manpower Recruitment or Supply Agency services - applicant is not paying service tax on their gross amount received from the service recipient. - Held that:- the applicant is providing service to the client on principal to principal basis. In these circumstances, the applicant is required to pay service tax on the gross amount received for the services provided by them. Further, the applicant has non-informed the value of services provided by it. Therefore, we are of the view that the Department has invoked the extended period of limitation. - prima facie case is against the assessee - 50% stay granted.
- 2014 (12) TMI 1165 - CESTAT NEW DELHI
Waiver of pre deposit - Intellectual Property Right service - Penalty u/s 77 & 78 - Held that:- No element of temporality, either in inherence of title in the technical drawings in favour of the petitioner nor in the period for which the petitioner may beneficially use the know-how pursuant to the permanent transfer of technical drawings nor in the extent of the rights to use the technical know-how is evident. The agreement clearly and exclusively transfers permanently the technical drawings. Therefore, the transaction prima facie falls more appropriately within the ambit of sub-clause (a) of Section 65(66b) of the Act but is excluded therefrom in view of exclusion of permanent transfers from the ambit of the sub-clause. - On a prima facie construction of the terms of the agreement read as a whole and a holistic construction of its condit....... + More
- 2014 (12) TMI 1164 - CESTAT NEW DELHI
Penalty u/s 76, 77 & 78 - Suppression of facts - Bonafide belief - Renting of immovable property - Management, maintenance or repair services - whether penal action is invited under Section 76 and Section 78 of the Finance Act, 1994 - Held that:- Appellants have deposited Service Tax on being pointed out by the department. Regarding payment of Service Tax on rendering service of renting of immovable property, they expressed that they had bona fide belief that tax was not payable as Hon’ble Delhi High Court [2009 (4) TMI 14 - DELHI HIGH COURT] has stayed the provisions. It was through retrospective amendment only, tax was made applicable - appellants has made case for waiver of penalty in respect of service of renting of immovable property. However relating to failure to deposit of Service Tax in respect of Management, maintenance or repai....... + More
- 2014 (12) TMI 1141 - CESTAT MUMBAI
Valuation - Telephone connection service - telegraph authority - The respondent appointed M/s. Reliance Industries Ltd. (RIL) as an agent to market the TRAI approved Tariff Plans with respect to telephone connections services provided by it by means of various schemes floated by the agent in this regard. - These services were provided through Code Division Multiple Access (CDMA) technology and could be availed by the subscribers only on a handset specially programmed and designed. - the agent of the respondent (i.e. M/s. RIL) was allowed to combine certain products, services and privileges offered by it. - Other than an amount of ₹ 14,400/- per subscriber, which was for rental and usage charges of telephone connection service, all other charges collected by the agent from the subscribers of the respondent were retained by the agent ....... + More
- 2014 (12) TMI 1140 - CESTAT NEW DELHI
Condonation of delay - Delay in receipt of order - Held that:- It is seen that though in respect of the order-in-original dated 15.02.2008, the department’s plea is that the same had been delivered to Shri Ramesh Kumar of the appellant company on 26.03.2009, no evidence in this regard, has been brought on record. Similarly, in respect of the order-in-original dated 13.03.2009, the department s plea is that the same was dispatched to the appellant by speed post on 26.07.2012. However, under Section 37 C of the Central Excise Act, 1944, the permitted mode of communication of the adjudication order is registered post with acknowledgement due (RPAD) and since the order was not dispatched by RPAD, it cannot be deemed to have been served on the appellant. Both these orders have been received by the appellant on 2.3.2013 and, therefore, the appe....... + More
- 2014 (12) TMI 1139 - CESTAT NEW DELHI
Denial of CENVAT Credit - Manpower supply service - cleaning of the yard within the factory - weighment of sugar cane - cane area survey and sugar can development - Held that:- As regards cleaning of the yard within the factory, as per the provisions of the factories act provision of Section 11 of the Factories Act it is the responsibility of a manufacturer to keep the factory premises neat and clean, therefore, the cleaning of the factory has to be treated as activity in or in relation to manufacture of the final product. Therefore, the Cenvat credit in respect of this activity would be admissible. - As regards the weighment of sugar cane and its unloading at the factory, this activity has to be treated as activity in relation to manufacture of sugar and molasses. Therefore, I hold that Cenvat credit would be admissible in respect of thi....... + More
- 2014 (12) TMI 1138 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD
Denial of refund claim - Notification No. 41/2007-ST dated 06.10.2007 - Held that:- Appellant have failed to produced required documents, accordingly the adjudicating authority has rejected the case on grounds of non-submissions of the documents and sans the same it could not be ascertained the vital aspects of the admissibility of the refund claim in accordance with the conditions as stipulated in the Notification No. 03/2008-ST dated 19.02.2008, as amended. The appellant have not adduced any further documents to this stage of appeal in support of their claim of refund, in the circumstances, the admissibility of the claim is not ascertainable. I find that the adjudicating authority has decided the case not only after considering each and every facts of the case but also discussed the matter at length and correctly rejected the refund cla....... + More
- 2014 (12) TMI 1137 - CESTAT BANGALORE
Imposition of penalty - Invocation of Section 80 - GTA service - Payment of tax as service recipient - Held that:- Appellant is a proprietary concern and not assisted by any professionally qualified officer. Even though, ignorance of law is not an excuse, yet the statutory provisions under Section 80 of Finance Act, 1994 have been made to enable officers to take a lenient view when assessees make omissions/commissions in payment of service tax. Normally, assumption of a layman would be that tax is to be paid by the service provider and if an assessee proceeds on this basis, they cannot be found fault with. At the same time, it has to be noted that each case has to be considered on its own merits and the conduct of the parties in relation to the demands made by the Department etc. In this case, in the month of October-November, 2009, the r....... + More
- 2014 (12) TMI 1136 - CESTAT BANGALORE
Penalty u/s 78 - Enhancement of penalty - transmission and distribution of electricity - Notification No. 45/2010-S.T., dated 20-7-2010 - whether the appellant is required to pay revised penalty - Held that:- in view of the Notification which exempts service tax upto 21-6-2010, the activity undertaken by them would not have been leviable to service tax at all if the appellant was not to pay the tax with interest and 25% of the penalty. Needless to say that the question of imposition of a revised penalty would not arise in such a situation since it would amount to imposing penalty on assessees who pay the tax as and when demanded with interest without questioning the right to collect and without any delay - Decided in favour of assessee.
- 2014 (12) TMI 1135 - CESTAT BANGALORE
Commercial Training or Coaching Service and Technical Testing and Analysis Service - exemption Notification No. 6/2006-Service Tax, dated 1-3-2006 - Held that:- Prior to introduction of Explanation to clause (zzc) of Section 65(105), by provisions of the Finance Act, 2010, there was considerable conflict as to whether an institute/establishment could be said to have provided Commercial Training or Coaching or where such coaching or training was provided without any commercial purpose or a profit motive. To clarify the issue legislature intervened and introduced the Explanation which clarifies that the expression “Commercial or Coaching Centre” includes any Centre or institute, by whatever name called, where training or coaching is imparted for consideration, whether or not such centre or institute is registered as a trust or a society or ....... + More
- 2014 (12) TMI 1134 - CESTAT KOLKATA
Penalty u/s 77 & 78 - Held that:- Assessee has paid the entire amount of Service Tax, interest and penalty imposed by the Commissioner. In view of the payment of all dues we are of the opinion that the present case would fall under second proviso to Rule 7C of Service Tax Rules, 1994. Besides we do not find merit in the Revenue’s plea that penalty is necessarily to be imposed under Section 77 of the Finance Act, the said provision is prescribed in dealing circumstances where no penalty is specified elsewhere and the maximum penalty leviable at the relevant time under the said provision was maximum ₹ 5,000/-. In these circumstances, we do not find substance in the appeal filed by the Revenue - Decided in favour of assessee.
- 2014 (12) TMI 1133 - CESTAT BANGALORE
Waiver of pre deposit - Site clearance and preparation service - Held that:- Appellant had sub-contracted the entire contract on a back-to-back basis to another contractor who executed the work and demand has been raised against the contractor who executed the work also. In view of the fact that the appellant had not executed the work and demand has been raised against the contractor who did the work, we consider that the appellant has made out a case for waiver - Stay granted. Works contract service - Held that:- unless the procedure as prescribed under the relevant rules is followed, according to which the appellant was required to opt for composition scheme before making the payment of tax, they cannot avail the benefit. Under these circumstances, the claim for composition scheme may not be admissible to appellants at all. Hence, we find that appellant has not made out a case for waiver in respect of this amount. No financial difficulty has been pleaded. - Partial stay granted.