Home Case Index All Cases Service Tax 2012 2012 2012 (6) Service Tax - 2012 (6) 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 81 to 100 of 134 Records

• 2012 (6) TMI 300 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI
  

  Admissibility of input credit of service tax paid on the outward transportation of the goods – Held that:- in the case of ABB Ltd. (2011 (3) TMI 248 (HC))credit of service tax paid on transportation up to place of sale is admissible. sale is on FOR destination basis. Revenue's appeal rejected

  ---

• 2012 (6) TMI 299 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI
  

  Adjustment of excess payment made for one period in respect of tax liability for future period – Held that:- Sub-rule (3) of Rule 6 of the Service Tax Rules, 1994 have been amended providing for adjustment of excess payment against future tax liability under rule 6(4A) and 6(4B) of the Service Tax Rules, 1994. Even though these rules were not in force at the material time and therefore are not applicable to the case at hence, considering the spirit of the amended rules and the fact that the appellant is a public sector unit and the entire amount of tax has been paid by adjustment. However, appellant public sector unit is cautioned that they should follow the legal provisions strictly in future and any contravention will be seriously viewed. Appeal is allowed

  ---

• 2012 (6) TMI 274 - CESTAT, AHMEDABAD
  

  Taxability of treasury services being provided by Bank where government does not have its own treasury and maintaining currency chests on behalf of Reserve Bank of India (RBI) - services of payment and receiving money on behalf of government in respect of various transactions - Revenue contended aforesaid services to be covered under definition of other financial services - Held that:- Exemption to the principal would be available to the agent also. For this purpose, since the agent is eligible for the exemption which is available to the principal in terms of the relationship with the principal of the agent and not because of exemption granted specifically to the agent or principal, we have to hold that the appellant is eligible for exemption.

  If RBI were to undertake the activity there would have been no question of levy of service tax. Therefore, we hold that the benefit of exemption available to RBI would be available to the agent i.e. Canara Bank. In view of the fact that appellant is held to be eligible for exemption as an agent of RBI, other issues are not considered at this stage.

  Limitation - Since question involves interpretation of law and facts in this case, therefore, we consider invocation of extended period is not called for. Penalty also set aside - Decided in favor of assessee.

  ---

• 2012 (6) TMI 273 - CESTAT, AHMEDABAD
  

  Stay petition - secondary transport charges - denial of the abatement of 75% from the value of service available as per Notification No.13/2008, dt.1.3.2008 - tax paid before issuance of SCN - details not furnished before lower authorities - Held that:- Details viz worksheets, Chartered Accountant's certificate could not be furnished since the appellant closed down the business in 2010 itself and it took time to get the certificate prepared and also get the statement prepared so that there is no mistake on their part even though the calculations have been made and payment has also been made. Accordingly, the impugned order is set aside and the matter is remanded to original adjudicating authority, who shall decide the issue afresh after considering the worksheets submitted by the appellant

  ---

• 2012 (6) TMI 272 - CESTAT, AHMEDABAD
  

  Penalty - authorized service station - liability of Service Tax on the incentive received from the bank, who provided finance to the purchaser of the vehicles - Revenue alleged suppression of facts - period involved June 2003 to June 2005 - Held that:- Issue has finally being clarified by the Board vide Circular No.87/05/2006-ST, dt.6.11.2006. Commissioner has rightly waived penalty relying upon decision rendered in case of Akar Motors vs CCE (2010 (8) TMI 213 (Tri)) wherein it is held that in situations where Board issued a clarification that there was doubts and clarifies the doubts, persons who are liable to service tax cannot be held to be liable to suppression of facts and imposition of penalty - Decided against the Revenue

  ---

• 2012 (6) TMI 271 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
  

  Condonation of delay - appeal in this case is filed after a lapse of one year - extraordinary discretionary jurisdiction – Held that:- amount of service tax and penalty demanded is not very large. Further, in any case it is a question of payment of tax from one Central Government Department to another Central Government Department. not inclined to exercise extraordinary discretionary jurisdiction and, therefore, the petition is dismissed. petition is disposed of

  ---

• 2012 (6) TMI 270 - CESTAT, KOLKATA
  

  Waiver of pre-deposit - Business Auxiliary Service and Cargo Handling Service – Held that:- one Agreement is in respect of extraction and transfer of coal, and the second one is in respect of transportation of coal within the mining area. As the Applicant is undertaking the activity of mining, which comes under the scope of Service Tax with effect from 1-7-2007, the transportation of coal within the mining is not subjected to Service Tax, pre-deposit of the Service Tax and penalties are waived and recovery of the same is stayed, Stay Petition is allowed

  ---

• 2012 (6) TMI 245 - CESTAT, AHMEDABAD
  

  Rejection of refund claim of Service Tax on service of C&F agent, transportation of goods, terminal charges etc. – Held that:- Sample invoices produced by assessee gives the details of shipping bill number, date of shipping bill, name of the party, the name of the port to which the goods are to be exported, name of the vessel etc. , thus to be concluded that the invoices can be linked with the export goods and therefore the refund cannot be rejected on this ground – against revenue.

  Photo-copies of the invoices were produced and the original copies were not produced – Held that:- CBE&C vide Circular No.112/06/2009-ST, dt.12.03.2009 has clarified that normally certified copies of the documents should be accepted and it is only in the case of in-depth enquiry that the original documents needs to be verified - Since the requirement is satisfied appeal filed by the Revenue has no merit.

  Rejection of refund claim on fumigation charges, a specialized process for cleaning the containers - Held that:- As decided in RAMDEV FOOD PRODUCTS PVT. LTD. Versus CCE, AHMEDABAD [2011 (3) TMI 1256 (Tri)]there has to be a written agreement between the buyer and the seller about testing and analysis of the product – as the assessee fairly agree that they do not have a written agreement, the benefit of refund would not be admissible – against assessee.

  ---

• 2012 (6) TMI 244 - CESTAT, AHMEDABAD
  

  Refund claim - SEZ unit - rejected on the ground that the appellant did not submit copies of invoices and proof of payment and further the refund claim was not filed within 6 months from the date of services received - Held that:- Notification does not require the invoices to be submitted but the documents to show that Service Tax has been paid. The confirmation in original from the service provider giving the details of Service Tax received by them in the light of this requirement, can be said to be sufficient. In any case, it is found that copies of invoices and proof of payments are being submitted. Therefore, the rejection of claim on this ground is not correct.

  Condonation of delay - Held that:- Taking note of the fact that the notification itself was issued in March 2009, a liberal approach for condonation of delay was required. Order is set aside and the matter is remanded to original adjudicating authority to consider the refund claim afresh.

  ---

• 2012 (6) TMI 243 - CESTAT, KOLKATA
  

  Consulting Engineering Service and Erection, Commissioning or Installation Service – Held that:- As the demand has been confirmed without taking into consideration the scope of all the contracts, therefore predeposit of the Service tax, interest and penalties are waived. Stay Petition is allowed.

  ---

• 2012 (6) TMI 242 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI
  

  G.T.A. service and maintenance and repair service activity - Held that:- transportation of faulty transformer was made under a different contract while repair and maintenance of transformer was done under a different contract and both being different contracts are governed by their own terms, no merit in stay application and appeal of Revenue. - appeal of Revenue dismissed

  ---

• 2012 (6) TMI 217 - CESTAT, AHMEDABAD
  

  Refund claims in respect of Service Tax paid on terminal handling denied on the ground that the terminal handling is not a notified service in the Notification No.41/2007-ST - Held that:- Both terminal handing and REPO charges paid to Port authorities are to be treated as a port service, hence appellants are eligible for refund claims filed by them. See AIA Engineering Ltd (2010 (7) TMI 486 (Tri)) - Decided in favor of assessee.

  ---

• 2012 (6) TMI 216 - CESTAT, AHMEDABAD
  

  Penalty u/s 76 - short payment of tax of Rs 6306 - dispute regarding calculation - Held that:- Though original adjudicating authority has made a detailed verification of calculation, however appeal memorandum lacks the clarity. Therefore, having regard to the amount involved in the appeal which is very small, and financial hardships of assessee, penalty leviable u/s 76 is waived while demand of service tax and interest is upheld.

  ---

• 2012 (6) TMI 215 - CESTAT, AHMEDABAD
  

  Income declared in the balance sheet filed with Income Tax department is higher than the income declared in their ST-3 returns as revealed by CERA audit – assessee submitted during the hearing that after the audit was conducted by the CERA party, the officers of the Service Tax wing of the department also conducted the audit – Held that:- The period covered by the CERA party is also covered by the audit party of the department and therefore it can be said that the department has conducted the verification of the correctness of the ST-3 returns filed and whatever deficiencies were found, the same has been made good by the appellant - the demand confirmed by the lower authorities amounts to duplication of the demand in respect of the amount already paid by the appellant - both the lower authorities have not considered the audit report of Service Tax wing the fact that the amount has been deposited has also been mentioned in the audit report itself - no indication as to why the audit report and the worksheet prepared by the appellant for the purpose of audit is not acceptable to the lower authorities - the impugned order is set aside and the matter is remanded to original adjudicating authority to adjudicate the matter afresh- in favour of assessee.

  ---

• 2012 (6) TMI 214 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI
  

  Business Auxiliary Service - appellant received commission from Jaipur Golden Transport Company – Held that:- agreement between the appellant and Jaipur Golden Tpt. Company shows that later was engaged in transport business and the former was engaged in booking goods for the former. There was also prohibitory clause i.e. clause (2) refraining the appellant from carrying out such activity for any other transport. The appellant was getting commission @ 6.5 per cent of the booking amount. All these features clearly suggest that appellant’s earning was linked with transport charges extending its helping hand for marketing the service of M/s. Jaipur Golden Transport Company, appeal is dismissed - Decided against the assessee.

  ---

• 2012 (6) TMI 213 - CESTAT, AHMEDABAD
  

  Stay Petition - construction of towers - condition of pre-deposit - (i) Commercial and Industrial Construction Service and (ii) Site Formation & Clearance Excavation & Earthmoving and Demolition service. - Held that:- Admittedly, no construction can be effected without first clearing land from unwanted material and preparing the same for construction. The efforts of the lower authority to de-link the above activity from main activity of construction and to hold that the same falls under the category of Site Formation & Clearance Excavation & Earthmoving and Demolition service, does not appear to be in accordance with the law. - pre-deposit of duty, penalty waived and Stay Petition allowed

  ---

• 2012 (6) TMI 212 - CESTAT, AHMEDABAD
  

  Stay - Pre-deposit - denial of benefit of Cenvat Credit of duty paid on the capital goods as also credit of tax paid on input services - alleged that inasmuch as the capital goods were not installed at Hazira and the input services were not availed at Hazira, the credit so availed by Hazira in respect of capital goods installed at Vaghodia and services availed at Vaghodia, was not in accordance with the provisions of Cenvat Credit Rules – Held that:- in the case of BSNL (2010 - TMI - 205047 - CESTAT, CHENNAI - Service Tax) held that M/s. BSNL, as a whole, is a service tax assessee, though its different has taken Service Tax registration at different places, prima facie, they are eligible to take credit in respect of capital goods received at Secondary Switching area, station at Vaghodia is a technical necessity so as to boost the pressure of the gas for further transportation to the ultimate place. Inasmuch as the said Vaghodia station is also a part of the same M/s. GAIL, who are discharging their Service Tax liability on the entire activity of transportation of the gas through pipeline, appellant is entitled to avail Cenvat Credit of duty paid on the capital goods or input services availed in respect of their Vaghodia station, pre-deposit of duty, interest and penalty waived and Stay Petition allowed

  ---

• 2012 (6) TMI 192 - CESTAT, AHMEDABAD
  

  Commission received from an up country person - receipt in foreign exchange on 28.05.2004 - Held that:- It is evident from advice received from BOB that foreign exchange has been converted and credited in the appellant's account in Indian currency. If the amount is received by the appellant from an up country person and has to be treated as commission, the moment it is received from convertible foreign exchange, it goes out of the purview of service tax liability during the relevant period in question. We find that up to July 2004, any amount received, which is as a commission either in Indian rupees or in foreign exchange, was exempted from the levy of service tax. Order set aside - Decided in favor of assessee.

  ---

• 2012 (6) TMI 191 - CESTAT, AHMEDABAD
  

  Taxability of commission received from the Print Media under the head business auxiliary services - Held that:- In view of decision rendered in case of P.Gautam & Co. [2011 (9) TMI 392 (Tri)] it is held that the discounts/incentives received by the assessee from the print media will not be liable for service tax under the category of advertising agency services. If that be so, the said discounts/incentives itself cannot be considered for the purpose of taxability under the head business auxiliary services as the amounts which are received are in respect of the services provided under the category of advertising agency services and the amount are discounts and incentives and not as charges for services - Decided in favour of assessee.

  ---

• 2012 (6) TMI 190 - CESTAT, AHMEDABAD
  

  Refund claim rejected on ground of unjust enrichment - Practising chartered account - Held that:- It is observed that appellant was rendering different types of services during the relevant period and wherever the service rendered was a taxable service, the invoice was showing the service tax separately and paying the same to the department. Where the appellant felt that the service was not liable to service tax, no service tax was collected. This itself is sufficient to show that the appellant had not collected the amount from the customers. Further, appellant has rightly shown it as an expenditure since the amount was not collected from the customers. Therefore, appellant is eligible for the refund claimed - Decided in favor of assessee.

  ---

1234567