|
Advanced Search Options
Service Tax - Case Laws
Showing 21 to 40 of 181 Records
-
2018 (1) TMI 1388 - CESTAT ALLAHABAD
Renting of Immovable Property Service - service tax became effective since 01/06/2007 - in year 2009, it was struck down but again in 2010, taxation was restored with retrospective effect - appellant was registered with the Department since 08/01/2008, but did not pay any service tax - extended period of limitation - penalty.
Held that:- There is no case of concealment made out by the Revenue, in the show cause notice, as the appellant had recorded the transaction in the books of accounts ordinarily maintained and had also disclosed such turnover in their income tax returns. Thus the non-compliance was due to the striking down of the levy duty by the High Court under the said head.
The extended period of limitation is not available to Revenue - the penalties imposed are not sustainable and accordingly the penalties under Section 78 and 77 are set aside - appeal allowed in part.
-
2018 (1) TMI 1362 - CESTAT HYDERABAD
Business Auxiliary Services - threshing and re-drying operations of tobacco leaves - demand along with interest and penalties for the period April, 2013 to March, 2014 - Held that:- Identical issue was decided in the case of M.L. AGRO PRODUCTS LTD. VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF CUS., C. EX. & S.T., GUNTUR [2017 (2) TMI 1355 - CESTAT HYDERABAD], where it was held that the activity of the assessees is in relation to the agriculture and not subject to service tax as a Business Auxiliary Service even before or after the negative list was issued on 1-7-2012 - demand set aside - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.
-
2018 (1) TMI 1361 - CESTAT CHANDIGARH
CENVAT Credit - inputs/capital goods - towers, tower materials, shelters and prefabricated building - Held that:- The Larger Bench of this Tribunal in the case of Tower Vision India Pvt. Limited vs. CCE (Adj.), Delhi [2016 (3) TMI 165 - CESTAT NEW DELHI (LB)] has held that the assessee is not entitled to avail Cenvat credit on towers, shelters, prefabricated structures or tower materials - Credit not allowed.
Penalty - Held that:- The issue whether the appellant is entitled to avail Cenvat credit or not was in dispute and there were divergent views, in that circumstance, no penalty is imposable on the appellant - penalty set aside.
Appeal allowed in part.
-
2018 (1) TMI 1345 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
Condonation of delay in filing appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) - condonable period of limitation - CENVAT Credit - Held that:- It is borne out from the record that while the original order was passed on 25.08.2014, the appellant filed an appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) on 10.12.2015. It is not in dispute that the limitation for filing the appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) is 30 days and the appellate authority is vested with the power to condone the delay of one month only - The CESTAT rendered a categorical finding that the fact that the appellant received the order in original on 17.09.2014 sufficiently establishes that the plea of the appellant that it received the order copy only on 26.10.2015 was factually wrong.
Once it is found that the appellant’s plea that it received the order copy only on 26.10.2015 as false, the question of entertaining any alternative plea does not arise.
Appeal dismissed - decided against appellant.
-
2018 (1) TMI 1343 - CESTAT NEW DELHI
Liability of tax - amount collected towards supply of study material/ kit, from the candidates - Commercial Training and Coaching Services - benefit of N/N. 12/03-ST dated 20.06.2003 but was not allowed on the ground that the said study materials are essential part of coaching service and cannot be abated from the taxable value - Held that:- The identical issue has come up in the assessee’s own case M/s. Fittjee Limited Versus CST, New Delhi [2017 (2) TMI 1370 - CESTAT NEW DELHI], where it was held that Appellants have separate receipt for supply of books and study materials indicating the price clearly. They have sold such study materials /books to non-registered students, thus the benefit cannot be denied.
Benefit of Notification allowed - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.
-
2018 (1) TMI 1337 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI
Maintainability of appeal - Held that:- From the record, it appears that, in spite of notice there is no representation on behalf of assessee – appellants. When it is so, then it appears that they are not serious in pursuing their appeal - It may be mentioned that as per the maxim VIAILATIBUS ET NON DORMIENTIBUS JURA SUB VENIUNT, law helps those who are vigilant and not those who go to sleep - the appeal is dismissed for default.
-
2018 (1) TMI 1332 - CESTAT CHENNAI
Penalty - case of appellant is that Since the contract was with reference to commercial construction and the site preparation is for that only, they had a bonafide belief that these are to be considered as construction service eligible for abatement - Held that:- Admittedly, the appellant discharged the service tax with interest and are not contesting the same - the penalties imposed can be waived by invoking the provisions of Section 80 as there is a reasonable cause for payment of differential service tax now confirmed by the lower authorities - penalties set aside - appeal allowed in part.
-
2018 (1) TMI 1324 - CESTAT NEW DELHI
Appellants are not interested to pursue the case - VIAILATIBUS ET NON DORMIENTIBUS JURA SUB VENIUNT - Held that: - law helps those who are vigilant and not those who go to sleep - appeal is dismissed for default with liberty to come again for recalling this order subject to satisfying the reason for the default but within prescribed time.
-
2018 (1) TMI 1276 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Penalty - Renting of immovable property service - non-payment of service tax - intent to evade duty - Held that: - Assessee had paid service tax of ₹ 23,34,424/-, and total interest paid was ₹ 9.95,980/-, which means, major portion of the service tax has already been paid, even before the introduction of the Finance Act. Therefore, it cannot be said that there was any intention on the part of the respondent/assessee to evade payment of service tax - penalty rightly set aside - appeal dismissed - decided against Revenue.
-
2018 (1) TMI 1275 - CHHATTISGARH HIGH COURT
Extended period of Limitation - Section 73 of the FA 1994 - Held that: - the findings is sufficient enough to demonstrate that the ratio of Nizam’s case [2006 (4) TMI 127 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] has been applied apparently without appreciating the relevance of that decision to the facts of the case in hand.
Decided in favor of Revenue.
-
2018 (1) TMI 1274 - CESTAT CHANDIGARH
Renting of Immovable Property Services - Revenue felt that the appellants are providing Club or Association services for the period before 01.07.2012 and was not covered under the term public library for the period after 01.07.2012 - whether the activity engaged by the appellants falls in the category of club or association service during the period upto 31.06.2012 and whether the activities is classifiable as taxable service w.e.f 01.07.2012?
Held that: - Admittedly, The Browser is open to general public and accessible to all, who pay subscription amount. Further, the fact that it has no reading room or no newspaper or periodicals does not take away from the fact that public at large has right to though it is regulated by way of the prescribed fees - the library being run by the appellants is in the nature of a public library.
The activity of lending and return of books is the fee based activity for which they charge subscription fees. The services are being provided not to the share holders of the company but to third parties. As per the definition under Section 65(25)(a) club or association is a body of persons which provides services to its members. Subsequently, w.e.f. .01.05.2011, the definition was changed and Section 65(25)(a) was replaced by Section 65(25)(aa) to add the word Primarily to its members. The services in question are being provided not to its share holders, who are the members of the company but to other persons who are third parties - for the period after 01.05.2011 upto 30.06.2012, the show cause notice has not made any allegation invoking Rule 65(25)(aa), which had come into effect after that date - For the period after 01.07.2012, in the negative list of services on which service tax is exempted, the services of public libraries are exempted under N/N. 25/2012-ST dated 20.06.2012.
Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.
-
2018 (1) TMI 1273 - CESTAT CHENNAI
Rectification of mistake - time limitation - maintainability of appeal - Held that: - It is correct that Section 74 prescribes two years time for filing rectification of mistake - Taking into consideration that the appeal has been filed within the prescribed period, after rejection of the ROM application, the appeal is not time-barred. The statute provides for filing such an application for rectification of mistake. Therefore, Commissioner (Appeals) ought to have considered the appeal to have been filed within the time.
The rejection of the appeal on the ground of time-bar is unjustified - matter is remanded to the Commissioner (Appeals) who is directed to consider the appeal on merits - appeal allowed by way of remand.
-
2018 (1) TMI 1272 - CESTAT CHENNAI
Penalty u/s 78 - tax paid before issuance of SCN - suppression of facts - Held that: - it is brought out that respondents have paid the service tax before issue of SCN - also, it is recorded by the Commissioner (Appeals) that the services would not attract levy of tax. In such circumstances, the respondents cannot be held guilty of suppression of facts so as to impose penalty u/s 78 - appeal dismissed.
-
2018 (1) TMI 1271 - CESTAT CHENNAI
Penalty u/s 78 - Interior decorator services - non-payment of service tax - suppression of facts - extended period of limitation - Held that: - the department has not been able to establish any positive act on the part of the appellant to establish willful suppression of facts - Further, the appellant has paid substantial amount of service tax prior to issuance of SCN - penalty u/s 78 set aside - demand of tax with interest upheld - appeal allowed in part.
-
2018 (1) TMI 1270 - CESTAT CHENNAI
Rectification of error - The matter was heard by Tribunal in the absence of the appellant / counsel and ex-parte order was passed - also, it was pointed that the appellant has paid the disputed amount of service tax after issuance of Show Cause Notice which is factually wrong - Held that: - the appellant had filed an intimation seeking adjournment dt. 22.11.2016. The appeal was taken up for hearing on 29.11.2016 and ex-parte order was passed. It appears that the intimation was not placed before the Bench - The Order-in-Original reflects that disputed amount of service tax has been paid by the appellant much before the issuance of SCN and the same has been appropriated by the adjudicating authority - there is an error apparent on the face of record which needs to be rectified - ROA application allowed.
-
2018 (1) TMI 1220 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Attachment of immovable property - recovery of service tax was not done - Held that: - It is seen that, notice of demand to the defaulter/third respondent was issued only on 15.10.2012, from which, it is appears that the property was yet to be attached, and it was stated that steps would be taken to realize the amount by attaching the property. However, much prior to the said date, i.e., 20.07.2012, the property has been sold to the petitioner. Therefore, the respondents 1 and 2 could not be proceeded further, pursuant to the notice of demand, dated 15.10.2012.
There is a circular issued by Central Board of Excise and Customs (CBEC), bearing No.103/06/2008-ST, dated 01.07.2008, which gives instructions, regarding provisional attachment of property under Section 73 (C) of the Finance Act, 1994, and in paragraph No.2 (ix), it is stated that the personal property of a sole proprietor or partners shall not be attached, and personal property means any movable property or immovable property, which is in personal use of the sole proprietor or partner.
Petition allowed - decided in favor of petitioner.
-
2018 (1) TMI 1219 - CESTAT CHENNAI
Liability of service tax - considerations received from RICO Industries Ltd. - time limitation - Held that: - As the appellant contested the demand on limitation considering the intricacies of the provisions of the agreement and the appellant being not the sole service provider and the full details were captured in the balance sheet and other documents of the appellant, the case for extended period for demand for the consideration received pursuant to the value of participation agreement cannot be sustained.
Liability of service tax - consideration received due to termination of the arrangement - Held that: - no identifiable service can be attributed for such consideration. It is rather a termination of arrangement which itself the original authority held as a service. We note that by terminating the arrangement, the appellants are adversely put to certain business loss. The consideration has been paid for such loss. No identifiable service could be attributed for such payment during the material time - tax liability cannot sustain.
Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.
-
2018 (1) TMI 1218 - CESTAT CHENNAI
CENVAT credit - inputs / capital goods - structural items like MS angles etc. and also various capital goods which are all used for setting up of telecommunication towers in various places - Held that: - the matter is no more res integra as the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in Bharti Airtel Ltd. [2014 (9) TMI 38 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT] as well as Larger Bench decision in Tower Vision India Pvt. Ltd. [2016 (3) TMI 165 - CESTAT NEW DELHI (LB)] held that credit on such inputs / capital goods as claimed by the appellant are not available - credit not allowed.
CENVAT credit - various input services - Erection and Construction service - Rent-a-cab service - Outdoor Catering service - Air Travel Agency service - Tour Operator service - Business Auxiliary Service - Authorized Service Station service - Subscription fees etc. - Held that: - the service of erecting of such tower is essentially an input service covered by the main means clause of the definition for input service that is used by a service provider for providing output service - reliance placed in the case of Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd. Versus Commissioner of C. Ex., Chandigarh-I [2016 (8) TMI 1284 - CESTAT, CHANDIGARH] - credit allowed.
Rent-a-cab services - Outdoor catering services - Air Travel Agent services - tour operator service - denial of credit is not due to non-availability of documents - Held that: - we are not fully satisfied with the details on the basis and the purposes of such credit and accordingly we are in agreement with the lower authorities in denying them in the absence of any contrary evidence produced by the appellant to establish their eligibility for the same.
Extended period of limitation - penalty - Held that: - Admittedly, the dispute is one involving legal interpretation and difference of opinion. In such circumstances, it is not tenable to invoke ingredients of Section 73 proviso for confirming the demand for extended period as well as imposing penalties.
Appeal allowed in part.
-
2018 (1) TMI 1217 - CESTAT CHENNAI
Manpower recruitment and supply agency service - appellants in their course of business deputed some of their personnel to their group companies - Held that: - The issue stands decided by the decision by the decision of the Hon’ble High Court of Gujarat in the case of Arvind Mills Ltd. [2014 (4) TMI 132 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT], where it was held that It is true that the definition is wide and would include any such activity where it is carried out either directly or indirectly supplying recruitment or manpower temporarily or otherwise. However, fundamentally recruitment of the agency being a commercial concern engaged in providing any such service to client would have to be satisfied - demand not sustainable - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.
-
2018 (1) TMI 1216 - CESTAT NEW DELHI
Business Auxiliary Services - documents processing charges received by the appellant from the buyer of vehicle - Held that: - Since, for providing documentation service, the appellant claims the charges from its customers, the same should not be considered as business auxiliary service, in as much as, there is no involvement of any third party, on whose behalf, the appellant provides service to its customers - demand set aside - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.
........
|
