Home Case Index All Cases Service Tax 2010 2010 2010 (12) Service Tax - 2010 (12) 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 61 to 80 of 112 Records

• 2010 (12) TMI 325 - CESTAT, CHENNAI
  

  Waiver of pre-deposit - cenvat credit of service tax paid on sales promotion and market research services to be allowed as covered by the decision of HC in CCE, Nagpur v. Ultra Tech Cement Ltd.[2010 -TMI - 78203 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT] - As regards storage and delivery of goods, since goods are in question are export goods, no service tax liability arises thereon - full waiver granted.

  ---

• 2010 (12) TMI 324 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
  

  Penalty - The assessee had already paid the service tax amount alongwith interest before completion of the adjudication process and request was made for taking a lenient view as regards penalty - Held that: - The impugned order indicates that the total amount of duty liability involved is Rs. 70,000/- over a period of almost five years - considering the findings of fact recorded by the Tribunal and considering the smallness of amount involved, waiver of penalty u/s 80 upheld.

  ---

• 2010 (12) TMI 323 - CESTAT, AHMEDABAD
  

  Refund claim - Exempted goods - export without claim of rebate or export was not under bond - refund of credit taken on input service under Rule 5 of CENVAT Credit Rules - services availed by the respondent are in respect of businesses and it was from the place of removal – Refund claim allowed

  ---

• 2010 (12) TMI 321 - CESTAT, MUMBAI
  

  Collection of octroi - Waiver of pre-deposit - It is pertinent to note that an exclusion clause, which was present in the text of the definition of ‘Banking and other Financial Service’ under Section 65(12)was omitted w.e.f. 1-6-2007 - Banking and Other Financial Services - clause read “but does not include cash management - The Hon’ble High Court clarified that, in the absence of any inclusive definition available in the statute, it could not be said that the petitioners would fall within the mischief of the provision - It would, therefore, follow that the absence of exclusion was not reckoned as inclusion - waiver from pre deposit allowed.

  ---

• 2010 (12) TMI 309 - CESTAT, MUMBAI
  

  Service tax liability - Commercial training or coaching services - The respondent incurred expenses towards training fees for imparting commercial training to their staff outside India from overseas commercial training institute who did not have any office in India - As per board Circular No. 59/8/03, dated 20-6-03 it is clear that if the employer hires an outside coaching for imparting training to its employees and the payment thereof made by the employer to such coaching centre then the service availed by the employer shall be liable to pay service tax - In this case, the coaching has been availed by the employees in their individual capacity and payment thereof made by the employees to the coaching centre directly - The employer has reimbursed the coaching fees to the employees only.

  Held that: the employer has not made any payment to such coaching centre which is basic requirement of the Board circular to levy service tax liability - The respondents are not liable to pay service tax for the coaching availed by the employer (sic.) (employee) in their individual capacity outside India from the coaching centre.

  ---

• 2010 (12) TMI 299 - CESTAT, MUMBAI
  

  Refund of the service tax - Export of goods - As per Notification No. 41/2007-Service Tax, the assessee cannot claim the refund of Service Tax paid on the services which are being used for the purpose of export of goods by the merchant exporter - The exporter (who has availed the service for export) is entitled to claim the refund of service tax paid by them and not the manufacturer of the goods - As per the case of CCE, Chandigarh v. Indian Overseas Corporation ,the Hon’ble High Court of H.P. has also taken the same view that the exporter is entitled to claim rebate, not the manufacturer - Held that: the assessee is not entitled to take refund of service tax paid on the services availed by the exporter for export of the goods - Hence, the appeals filed by the assessee are rejected and the appeals filed by the Revenue are allowed.

  ---

• 2010 (12) TMI 264 - CESTAT, DELHI
  

  Services of foreign agent in connection with procurement of orders and in respect of other activities of their business - recipients of services from Foreign Service provider cannot be subjected to liability to tax prior to 18.4.06 i.e. prior to introduction of Section 66A in the Finance Act, 2006 – Appeal rejected

  ---

• 2010 (12) TMI 251 - CESTAT, DELHI
  

  Rebate - Tribunal in the case of CCE, Raipur vs. Raipur Rotocast Ltd reported in 2010 (16) STR 466 wherein it has been held that insurance of the capital goods whether in the factory or in transit and similarly the group insurance of the workers and staff is very much part of the business activity and every manufacturer or service provider has to use these services for his business

  As regards, the denial of refund relating to the group insurance/health policy is concerned, it is not disputed that there is no mandatory requirement to provide such services to the employees.

  No doubt, whatever expenses incurred for whatever benefit extended to the employees will also form part of the cost of output service. Merely because the cost of certain service form part of the output service, the same cannot be treated as input service eligible for credit. - Appeal is partly allowed

  ---

• 2010 (12) TMI 240 - CESTAT, AHMEDABAD
  

  Penalty under section 75(a), 76, 77, 78 - . The appellant entered into an agreement with M/s. BNIPL for marketing of the products manufactured by them - During the period in question, the appellant did not pay any service tax but got themselves subsequently registered with the service tax department in or around Aug. 2004 and started paying service tax - Revenue with a view that the appellant should have paid service tax prior to the registration also with effect from 1-7-2003 under the category of business auxiliary services started investigations at their end - If the assessee proves that there was a reasonable cause for the failure. Reasonable cause can be reasonably said to be a cause which prevents a man of average intelligence and ordinary prudence acting under the normal circumstances without negligence or inaction for want of bona fides - Held that there was bona fide on the part of the appellant to construe the services being provided by them as commission agent services, the same fact applied for holding the demand to be barred by limitations would act as a reasonable cause for setting aside the penalty in terms of provisions of section 80 - It is settled law that where the breach of law flowed from a bona fide belief that the assessee was not liable to act in the manner prescribed in the statute, penalties should not be imposed - Set aside the penalties imposed upon the appellant - The appeal is allowed by way of remand for quantification of demand within the period of limitation

  ---

• 2010 (12) TMI 229 - CESTAT, BANGALORE
  

  Works Contract Service – Amendment w.e.f. 1.6.2007 – Composition scheme – stay - . The Board's Circular clarified a point, which is squarely applicable to the facts of the present case. The question was whether a service provider was entitled to avail the benefit of payment of Service Tax at compounded rate in terms of Rule 3(3) where he had paid Service Tax prior to 01.06.2007 under any of three heads including commercial or industrial construction service. It was clarified that the service provider in such factual situation was not entitled to the benefit. This Circular was upheld by the Hon'ble High Court in the case of Nagarjuna Construction Company Ltd. (2010 - TMI - 77165 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT) - the appellant directed to pre-deposit an amount of Rs. 2.66 crores.

  ---

• 2010 (12) TMI 221 - CESTAT, DELHI
  

  Penalty - Cenvat Credit on GTA - whether the respondent are liable for penalty for payment of service tax by utilising cenvat credit. - Held that: Since during that period, there were conflicting judgements of the Tribunal on this issue, and as such there is nothing on record from which any malafide intention can be inferred on the part of the respondent, I am of the view that there is no infirmity in the impugned order in setting aside the penalty on the respondent. The Revenues appeals are, therefore, dismissed.

  ---

• 2010 (12) TMI 210 - CESTAT, DELHI
  

  Reversal of cenvat credit – SCN issued alleging that as such inputs removed were not used for manufacture of final products, the credit service tax attributable to the GTA services utilized for bringing the inputs not available in terms of Rule 3(5) of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 - absence of express provision for reversal of credit of service tax attributable to input service associated with inputs, the question of reversal of credit of service tax does not arise - appeals filed by the department rejected

  ---

• 2010 (12) TMI 198 - CESTAT, CHENNAI
  

  Cenvat credit - The appellants have taken credit in respect of advertisement and consulting engineer services and have utilized the same in respect of both their units - There is no provision in law for availing proportionate credit but the reversal was made at the instance of the Department. Subsequently, the Department has levied interest and penalty in respect of such reversal which in the first place was not required to be done - The only restrictions are that the credit should not exceed the amount of service tax paid and the second restriction is that the credit should not be attributable to services used in the manufacture of exempted goods or for providing of exempted services - he case of the Department is squarely covered by the ratio of the earlier decision of the Tribunal in the case of ECOF Industries (2009 -TMI - 75868 - CESTAT, BANGALORE). - Appeal are allowed

  ---

• 2010 (12) TMI 187 - CESTAT, AHMEDABAD
  

  GTA services - rebate of Service Tax and cess paid on input service used for export of taxable service - refund claim is made was also wrong ground - appellant submitted in the application that they had exported Goods Transport Services and claimed refund, whereas in reality, they had exported excisable goods and they were claiming refund of Service Tax paid on GTA services - substantive right cannot be denied on the ground that covering letter of the refund claim was wrong - rectifiable error – Appeal alolwed

  ---

• 2010 (12) TMI 181 - CESTAT BANGALORE
  

  Penalty - Original authority had found that the assessee had evaded the payment of service tax due - While demanding and appropriating the tax due as well as interest, he imposed penalty of 25% of the tax confirmed under Section 78 of the Act - Commissioner enhanced the penalty equal to the service tax demand - assessee was entitled to the relief provided in proviso to Section 78 of the Act whereby if it paid 25% that will be in complete discharge of its penal liability - asessee had paid an amount of 25% of the tax before the revisionary proceedings were started - assessee satisfied the requirement of Section 78 - No further amount payable – Appeal allowed

  ---

• 2010 (12) TMI 176 - CESTAT, AHMEDABAD
  

  DTA service – Refund claim - Service Tax paid by them from CENVAT Credit - appellant was advised to make the payment of Service Tax in cash, accordingly, the appellant paid the Service Tax with interest - appellant maintained that they were eligible to pay the Service Tax by utilizing CENVAT Credit amount, filed a refund claim - appeal filed by the appellant against rejection of refund claim was rejected but the appellant allowed to take CENVAT Credit already reversed by them towards payment of Service Tax on DTA service

  ---

• 2010 (12) TMI 168 - CESTAT, MUMBAI
  

  Cenvat credit - service tax wrongly with interest - amount of service tax availed as cenvat credit by the appellant - application for refund of interest paid on such wrong payment of service tax filed - Held that:- Appellant not entitled to claim such refund as the amount of interest paid by them was inextricably linked with the amount of service tax already availed and utilized as CENVAT credit - neither Section 11B nor any principle of equity was invocable by the appellant for claiming refund of interest in the facts and circumstances of their case – Appeal dismissed

  ---

• 2010 (12) TMI 163 - CESTAT, DELHI
  

  GTA services - service tax was paid out of the Cenvat credit on GTA services - CBECs Excise Manual of Supplementary Instructions shows that there is no legal bar to the utilisation of Cenvat credit for the purpose of payment of service tax on the GTA services - respondents were well within their right to utilize the Cenvat credit for the purpose of payment of service tax - Commissioner (Appeals) as well as the Tribunal have held that the respondents were entitled to pay the service tax from the Cenvat credit – Appeal allowed

  ---

• 2010 (12) TMI 159 - CESTAT, MUMBAI
  

  Waiver of pre-deposit - The appellant was a sub-contractor for M/s Bharat Heavy Electricals Ltd (BHEL) during the material period - BHEL did not pay service tax under the aforesaid head as, according to them, they were not liable to pay service tax as main contractor prior to 10.9.2004 - It is their case that they were not liable to pay service tax on the amount received by them from M/s BHEL for erection inasmuch as erection was not a part of the service prior to 10.9.2004 - Appeal allowed by way of remand

  ---

• 2010 (12) TMI 152 - CESTAT, DELHI
  

  Charging of service tax from the service recipient - service providers from whom the Respondent had received the taxable services are not the persons having office or establishment in India - in case of Indian National Shipowners Association held that for the period prior to 18.4.2006, the service tax liability cannot be fastened on the service recipient in India in a situation where taxable service was provided by a non-resident person not having office/establishment in India – Appeal dismissed

  ---

123456