Advanced Search Options
Service Tax - Tribunal - Case Laws
Showing 1 to 20 of 135 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 (6) TMI 960 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD
Waiver of pre-deposit - Demand of service tax alongwith interest and penalties - Ineligible Cenvat credit - Cenvat credit availed of service tax paid by the service providers in respect of the effluent/waste management in the factory premises - Held that:- the definition of the input service as enshrined in Rule 2(l) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 clearly envisages the eligibility to avail Cenvat credit of the service tax paid, inasmuch as unless the effluent treatment plant is in place, the manufacturing activity cannot commence is the law of the land today as regards the pollution control norms being implemented by the State Government. Therefore, the appellant is eligible to avail the Cenvat credit on service tax paid on such services rendered to them. - Waiver granted and recovery stayed
- 2014 (6) TMI 955 - CESTAT CHENNAI
Restoration of appeal - Dismissed for non-compliance - Assessee prayed that it may be permitted to deposit the balance amount of ₹ 37,00,000/- in instalments - Held that:- the applicant had not complied with the stay order till date. Besides, there is no provision for allowing to pay the balance pre-deposit amount in instalments, after dismissing the appeal. - Decided against the applicant
- 2014 (6) TMI 865 - CESTAT NEW DELHI
Condonation of delay - Disallowance of CENVAT Credit - Penalty u/s 11AC - Held that:- appellant assumes that there was no delay whatsoever in filing of the appeal, since the copy of the adjudication order was first served on the appellant on 09.11.2010, whereas the order was served on 28.04.2010. There is no explanation offered for the belated filing of the appeal. It is the clear case of Revenue that the order in original was served on the authorised representative of the appellant Shri Kushal Mani, on 28.4.2010. This fact was clearly pleaded by the jurisdiction Commissioner, to which there is no response by the appellant. - there is no justification offered for the clear delay in preferring the appeal - Decided against assessee.
- 2014 (6) TMI 864 - CESTAT MUMBAI
Waiver of pre-deposit - Service of order - Whether the service of the adjudication order through “Speed Post” is proper or not - Held that:- As held by the Hon'ble High Court of Punjab & Haryana in the case of Best Dyeing (2007 (10) TMI 422 - PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT), the service through “Speed Post” is not a proper service. The Hon'ble High Court has also observed that in the Finance Act, 2013, an amendment took place in Section 37C of the Central Excise Rules, 1944, wherein the service through “Speed Post” is incorporated as “not a valid service”. Therefore, I hold that the service through “Speed Post” is not a proper service during the impugned period. As the appellant filed an appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) as soon as he received the adjudication order, therefore, the appeal filed before him is within the prescribed time - Matter remanded back - Decided in favour of assessee.
- 2014 (6) TMI 863 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD
Service Tax demand - difference in the figures available in the income tax returns and the value of services declared in the ST-3 returns filed by the appellants - Held that:- It is observed that calculation of Service Tax liability based on the income tax return and ST-3 returns is the basic point of the Revenue. Filing documents and pointing of correct calculation in determining of Service Tax liability can always be agitated by the appellant before the appellate authority. Strictly speaking, the point agitated by the appellant before the first appellate authority cannot be considered as additional grounds on some other legal issues which were not taken up before the adjudicating authority. Out of total duty demand of Rs.3,40,573/- confirmed by the adjudicating authority, an amount of Rs.1.5 lakh was deposited by the appellant at the ti....... + More
- 2014 (6) TMI 862 - CESTAT NEW DELHI
Adjustment of shortfall of tax with excess payment of service tax - demand based on difference ST-3 return - Demand of service tax u/s 11D - Enhancement in rate of tax - Held that:- The appellant's plea is that there was excess payment to the extent of about Rs.13 lakhs during October, 2003 and if this excess amount is taken into account, there would not be any demand against them under Section 11D. The appellant's counsel has vehemently pleaded that they have documents to prove that the entire amount collected from the customers as service tax during the period from October, 2002 to September, 2003 was paid to the Government. Since this is a matter of reconciliation, the same can only be done by the original adjudicating authority for which this matter would have to be remanded. - matter remanded back. Difference in ST-3 return - Held th....... + More
- 2014 (6) TMI 834 - CESTAT KOLKATA
Leviability of Service Tax - consignment agency services - Clearing and Forwarding Agent Service - job of conversion of raw materials into finished goods on job-work basis - Held that:- Applicant are engaged by M/s. Tata Steel Ltd. for conversion of raw material into finished goods and deliver the same to various stockyards. For that the Applicant are paid a fixed conversion charges. We also find an agreement dated 30.03.1998 whereby the Applicant also agreed to provide the service of a consignment agency service to M/s. Tata Steel Ltd. and the remuneration fixed was at Rs.250/275 per M.T. It is the claim of the Applicant that even though they have entered into the said agreement with M/s. Tata Steel Ltd. they have not received any consignment agency charges from M/s. Tata Steel Ltd. beyond the conversion charges received from M/s. Tata S....... + More
- 2014 (6) TMI 833 - CESTAT NEW DELHI
Demand of service tax - Rent a cab service - outdoor catering services - Invocation of extended period of limitation - Held that:- Admittedly, the show cause notice issued on 26.4.2006 pertaining to the period 8.7.04 to 3.2.2005 is barred by normal period of limitation. Further, the original adjudicating authority having granted the benefit of section 80 of the Finance Act to the appellant, has held that there was no suppression on the part of the assessee. If there is no suppression, I fail to understand as to how the longer period of limitation would get invoked. - Demand barred by limitation period - Decided in favour of assessee.
- 2014 (6) TMI 832 - CESTAT BANGALORE
Denial of CENVAT Credit - order beyond the scope of show cause notice - Input services - Refund claim - nexus with the output service - Held that:- Original adjudicating authority as well as the first appellate authority have considered the issue of eligibility of CENVAT credit in respect of services received by them and held that many services cannot be considered as input services since they have no nexus with the output service provided by them. This was not at all the ground taken in the show-cause notice and therefore both the lower authorities have travelled beyond the show-cause notice when they considered the issue of eligibility for CENVAT credit in respect of input service received by them - Therefore, the stand taken by both the lower authorities that certain services could not have been considered as input services cannot be s....... + More
- 2014 (6) TMI 831 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD
Works Contract Composition Scheme - whether the appellant is eligible for ‘Composition Scheme’ under the ‘Works Contract (Composition Scheme for Payment of Service Tax) Rules, 2007’ for a works contract entered with M/s. Essar Oil Limited when some advance payments were received by the appellant prior to 01.6.2007 i.e. before introduction of Works Contract Service. - Extended period of limitation - Held that:- in respect of the services provided after 01.06.2007, which alone are regarded as ‘Works Contract Service’, the appellant had opted to pay tax at the Composition rate and not at the standard rate and was thus eligible for the composition benefit in respect of services provided after 01.06.2007. - Decision in the case of Nagarjuna Construction Company Limited vs. GOI [2012 (11) TMI 404 - SUPREME COURT] followed - Appellant has correc....... + More
- 2014 (6) TMI 830 - CESTAT CHENNAI
Business Exhibitions conducted abroad - Technical Inspections were done outside India - Import of services - reverse charge - service tax liability under Section 66A of Finance Act, 1994 - parties located abroad - Held that:- payments made by the appellant were in respect of exhibitions conducted abroad. Similarly it is seen that the Technical Inspections were done outside India. - as per the provisions of the Rule 3 (ii) of Taxation of Services (Provided from Outside India and Received in India) Rules, 2006, these two services are considered to be imported into India when the service provider is located abroad and service is performed in India. - Since, these services are performed outside India there is no service tax liability on the services in view of the above provisions - Following decision of Paramount Communication Ltd. Vs. CCE, ....... + More
- 2014 (6) TMI 800 - CESTAT BANGALORE
Waiver of penalty invoking section 80 - courier service - delayed payment of service tax with interest - Held that:- The very fact that the matter went right up to the Supreme Court and finally it was decided against the assessee shows that assessee definitely felt that they had a case for non-payment of service tax. That being the position, I am unable to agree that there was willful intention on the part of the assessee not to comply with tax liabilities. - Decided against the revenue. Decision on cross objection filed by assessee - Held that:- Even though the cross-objection has not been numbered and not listed, the learned advocate insisted that the same should be considered as an appeal filed by them. - in the interest of justice, tribunal proceeded with to deal with the issue raised by the learned counsel. Extended period of limitat....... + More
- 2014 (6) TMI 799 - CESTAT KOLKATA
Restoration of appeal - Demand of service tax, interest and imposition of penalty - Appeal was dismissed for want of COD clearance - Held that:- That being aggrieved by the impugned order dated 31.03.2008 passed by the ld.Commissioner, the Department has preferred an appeal as well as the Applicant. At that time, the Applicants choose to file an appeal against the confirmation of the part of the demand against them and elected not to contest that part of the order in favour of them by filing Cross Objection. Now, going through their application seeking condonation of the delay in filing the cross-objection, we do not find any valid reason or cause justifying the delay in filing the Cross Objection. Even in the application, the total number of delays occurred in filing the present Cross Objection, has also not been stated clearly nor any d....... + More
- 2014 (6) TMI 798 - CESTAT KOLKATA
Waiver of pre deposit - valuation - Steamer Agent’s Service - inclusion of various charges collected - Advance Manifest Charges (AMS), Bunker Surcharges (BS) and Currency Adjustment Factor (CAF) Charges from the Shippers in India and transferred the said amounts to the Overseas Liner - Business Support Service - Held that:- prima facie, the Applicant could able to show that Bunker Surcharges (BS) and Currency Adjustment Factor (CAF) Charges are nothing but the charges relating to Ocean Freight, which though collected by them on behalf of the overseas liner from the Indian shippers, but transferred in its entirety to the liners. Also, prima facie, we find that the ‘Collection/Commission Charges’ against these services rendered by the Applicant to the Overseas Liners, had been included in the ‘Steamer Agent’s Services’ and appropriate servi....... + More
- 2014 (6) TMI 797 - CESTAT KOLKATA
Waiver of predeposit - mining and post mining services - Cargo Handling Services - Mining of Mineral Oil or Gas Services - transportation of iron ore at their iron and manganese mines, hiring of rock-breakers with excavator at the mines, hiring of machineries for shifting/removal of over-burdens and excavation/loading, shifting and unloading - shifting, loading and transportation and removal of ROM and over-burdens to the fines/sized ores from different filling mines to railway siding - Held that:- Analyzing the relevant contracts of loading and transportation works and the representative invoices, it is observed that the distances required to be covered, was very short, i.e. within 2 to 8 Kms., for which the charges varied from Rs.22 to Rs.50 per MT. Although the transportation is one of the link of the contracts, but it does not constit....... + More
- 2014 (6) TMI 796 - CESTAT BANGALORE
Management, maintenance or repair service - Exclusion of value of material - appellant disclosed 30% of the consideration received, assuming that 70% of the consideration received (asserted by the appellant to be on the basis of an 'industry norm') to represent the value of goods and raw materials deemed to have been sold to the recipient of the service. - Held that:- wherever there are complex transactions including components of service and sale of goods (actual or deemed), the taxable value for levy of service tax would be only the component of service but excluding the component of sale of goods. Accordingly, on this interpretation of the provisions of Section 67 the value of goods sold or deemed to have been sold, requires to be excluded from the taxable value for computation of service tax liability. Consequently, provisions of Noti....... + More
- 2014 (6) TMI 795 - CESTAT MUMBAI
Denial of refund claim - Exemption of CHA and Port Services by virtue of Notification No. 41/2007-ST - Commissioner (Appeals) allowed refund claim - Held that:- refund under Notification No. 41/2007-ST cannot be denied by reviewing the correctness of the Service Tax payment at the end of service providers - Following decision of Commissioner of Central Excise, Indore Vs. Anant Commodities Pvt. Ltd. & others reported in [2009 (10) TMI 229 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI] it is concluded that the Commissioner (Appeals) has rightly allowed the refund claim in full having considered the Board's circular dated 21.12.2009 - decided against Revenue.
- 2014 (6) TMI 768 - CESTAT NEW DELHI
Adjustment of excess payment of service tax - CENVAT Credit - Held that:- if during a particular month there is excess payment of tax, it does not mean that the excess paid amount had been recovered from the customers as the service tax has been paid on the estimated bill collection amount and the exact amount of service tax payable is determined only when the accurate figures of collection against the bills are available. When this is the position, there is no reason why the excess payment against a particular month cannot be adjusted against short payment during the other months, as there is no unjust enrichment involved. - Decided in favour of assessee. Regarding Cenvat Credit - Held that:- the bulk of the Cenvat credit is in respect of the service tax paid on the services of repair and maintenance, security, sales and advertisement, i....... + More
- 2014 (6) TMI 767 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD
Waiver of pre deposit - Demand of service tax - Held that:- appellant had deposited an amount as has been claimed and appropriated by the Adjudicating Authority. On perusal of records, we find that the issue is an arguable one and needs to be gone into details as to whether the appellant is liable to tax on receiving/providing various services during the material period. Since the appellant is contesting the issue on merits, we consider the amount deposited by the appellant is enough deposit to hear and dispose the appeal on merits - Stay granted.
- 2014 (6) TMI 766 - CESTAT NEW DELHI
Demand of service tax - Technical testing and analysis service - testing of the samples received from job workers who are manufacturing the goods for the respondent on job work basis and the samples received from their sister concerns abroad for testing - Held that:- As regards the testing of the samples received from the job workers, these samples are from the goods which were being manufactured by the job workers for the respondent on job work basis and there is nothing on record to show that the respondent had charged any amount for testing the samples from the job workers. Therefore, we agree with the findings of the Commissioner (Appeals) that the respondent have tested their own goods and, as such, have not provided any service to the job workers and, hence, no service tax would be chargeable. Even in the grounds of appeal in the Re....... + More