Home Case Index All Cases Service Tax 2010 2010 2010 (7) Service Tax - 2010 (7) 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 101 to 120 of 123 Records

• 2010 (7) TMI 195 - CESTAT, AHMEDABAD
  

  Demand – Suppression - As a result of scrutiny it was found that the value of services as reflected by them in their ST-3 returns was lower than the income reflected in their profit and loss account. Shri Mukund bhai M. Bhatt, Director of the appellant-Company, in his statement recorded on 26-9-2005 stated that apart from providing the security services, they are also providing other services like housekeeping, sweeper, sanitation, gardener, helper and labour etc. and such services are non-taxable services. Held that – order not indicating such invoices were produced. Impugned order set aside. Matter remanded to adjudicating authority for re-adjudication.

  ---

• 2010 (7) TMI 194 - CESTAT, MUMBAI
  

  Exemption under Notification No. 13/2003-S.T. - appellant were provider of service on commission basis to certain financial companies by way of collecting/forwarding prospective loanees and have been receiving commission for such service from the service receivers. Such service is taxable under ‘Business Auxilliary Service’. The appellant did not pay service tax for the period from July, 2003 to 9-9-2004. Proceedings were initiated against them. The adjudicating authority dropped all the proceedings initiated against the appellant on the ground that no tax was payable by them in view of Notification No. 13/2003-S.T., dated 20-6-2003. The adjudicating authority’s order was reviewed and the learned Commissioner has confirmed the demand of Rs. 1,69,852/- after denying the benefit of the aforesaid notification. Held that – appellant not covered under commission agent as per explanation in notification. Thus impugned order denying exemption sustainable.

  ---

• 2010 (7) TMI 192 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
  

  Clearing and Forwarding Agent services – Agreement conditions indicating respondent acting as del credere agent and such person covered under Business Auxiliary Services. Held that – period involved from 1.10.1999 to 30.09.2004 and prior to amendment of Business Auxiliary Services from 16.6.2005. High Court already decided identical issue before. Impugned activity not covered under C&F Agent Service. Thus the answer is in favour of assessee.

  ---

• 2010 (7) TMI 178 - CESTAT, CHENNAI
  

  Cenvat Credit – Input Service - The Revenue is in appeal against the extending of Cenvat credit of Service tax paid on services of maintenance of water coolers installed in the factory of the assessees and House Keeping services. Held that – provision and maintenance of water coolers essential requirement under Factory Act. House Keeping service necessary and vital for keeping factory in good condition. Thus benefit of credit rightly extended in impugned order.

  ---

• 2010 (7) TMI 176 - CESTAT, BANGALORE
  

  Scientific or Technical Consultancy Services - 65(105)(za) - service provider and client relationship - Held that: , in the implementation of the Governmental schemes, the assessee as implementing agency did not render any taxable "service" to the government.

  The department seems to be considering the Governments to be "clients" of APITCO. The question now is whether there was "service provider-client" relationship between the assessee and the governments. Here, again, the nature of the amounts paid by the governments to the assessee is decisive. A client must not only pay the expenses of the service but also the consideration or reward for the service to the service provider. Admittedly, in the present case, there was no payment, by any government to the assessee, of any amount in excess of what is called "grant-in-aid". Thus any service provider-client relationship between the assessee and the governments is ruled out.

  Many of the activities in question, such as micro-enterprises development, training programmes, project planning, infrastructure planning etc., are apparently in the nature of projects involving application of social science principles. The revenue has not shown that any techniques or principles of pure and applied sciences were applied in the implementation of the governmental schemes by the assessee.

  ---

• 2010 (7) TMI 167 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
  

  Penalty- Whether the penalty under Section 76 of the Finance Act, 1994 can be reduced below the limit prescribed by the section? The adjudicating authority confirmed demand to the tune of Rs.93,621/- towards short paid service tax and imposed penalty of Rs.20,000/- under Section 76 of the Act with penalty of Rs.95,000/- under Section 78 of the Act. Commissioner (Appeals) deleted the entire penalty under Section 76 of the Act on the footing that penalty had been levied also under Section 78 of the Act and thereafter reduced the penalty under Section 78 of the Act from Rs.95,000/- to Rs.94,000/-. The same was carried in appeal by respondent-assessee. Tribunal vide order dated 03.09.2007 allowed the appeal and remanded the matter back to the adjudicating authority. On the fresh round adjudicating authority again confirm penalty u/s 76 and 78. Held that- the impugned order of Tribunal dated 26.12.2008 is hereby quashed and set aside and appeal stand restored. The question is accordingly answered in the negative.

  ---

• 2010 (7) TMI 165 - CESTAT, AHMEDABAD
  

  Refund of Credit- The adjudicating authority rejected the refund claim on the ground that the appellants obtained registration under the category of ‘Business Auxiliary Service’ on 28-12-2007. Since the appellants were not registered with the service-tax department prior to. 2842-2007 the input service tax credit is not available prior to that date and hence, question of utilization of the same does not arise. Thus the appellant were not eligible for refund of input service credit for the period from April 07 to September 07. Appellant contending that refund allowed for earlier period. Held that- matter examined in de novo proceedings and refund allowed before and not known whether such order accepted by department or not. impugned order set aside. Matter remanded to adjudicating authority.

  ---

• 2010 (7) TMI 163 - CESTAT, AHMEDABAD
  

  Exemption by refund- Refund of service tax paid on services used in export of goods rejected on limitation. Initial date of filing refund claim relevant and subsequent date of filing in proper form and with documents not to be considered as actual date of filing. Held that- initial refund claim filed well within time in present case. Refund claim to be considered as within limitation. Impugned order set aside. Matter remand back.

  ---

• 2010 (7) TMI 161 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI-LB
  

  Valuation of clearing and forwarding agent service- Whether in determining valuation of clearing and forwarding agent service charges such as go-down rent, loading and unloading, security charges, electricity, cartage, stationery and printing, telephone, fax charges, photo expenses, repacking charges, traveling charges, internet charges etc. are excluded on the ground that they are collected as reimbursement from the service receiver ? Held that-non- reliability of earlier decisions by itself not a ground for referring matter to Larger Bench. Reference returned to Division Bench for passing appropriate orders.

  ---

• 2010 (7) TMI 160 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
  

  Renting of Immovable Property Services- Constitutional validity of Service Tax levy. Held that- service provider is liable to pay service tax with interest.

  ---

• 2010 (7) TMI 121 - CESTAT, CHENNAI
  

  Penalty u/s 78 - The tax demand is not disputed by the assessees and stands paid. The explanation put forth by the assessees for non-payment of service tax within time is that there was no intention to evade payment of tax as the entire amount of tax was available to them by way of credit and in fact they have taken credit. – Held that: - Considering the fact that the entire amount of tax demand is available to the assessees as credit, no intention to evade payment of tax can be established against them. Hence, the penalty imposed under Section 78 cannot be sustained - The appeal is thus allowed by setting aside the penalty.

  ---

• 2010 (7) TMI 120 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI
  

  Non compliance of stay order - Commissioner (Appeals) dismissed the appeal for non-compliance of the provision of Section 35F of the Central Excise Act, 1944 as on 2.4.2009 – Held that: - appellant submits that the appellant has paid a sum of Rs.89,000/- on 25.1.2010 - The appellant has since deposited 50% of the amount of service tax demanded which is more than the amount of Rs.75,000/- ordered to be pre-deposited. – appeal before commissioner (appeals) restored.

  ---

• 2010 (7) TMI 118 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI
  

  Clearing and Forwarding Agency Service – procurement of orders – Held that: - matter remanded back to apply the ration of decision of the larger bench in Larsen & Toubro Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Chennai reported in [2006 -TMI - 460 - Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi]

  ---

• 2010 (7) TMI 117 - CESTAT, BANGALORE
  

  Refund – STPI - Scientific or Technology Consultants/Repair & Maintenance Services – revenue contended that that the issue involved in this case is regarding refund claim during the period from September 2004 to March 2006. It is the submission that the provisions of Rule 5 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 during the material period will be applicable and it is for the appellant to conform to the relevant rules. It is the submission that the appellant has not conformed to the provisions of Rule 5 of the Cenvat Credit Rules – Held that: - that the points which have been raised by the appellant that they are manufacturers of software and they have been granted Central Excise Registration have not been considered by the lower authorities. It is also seen that there are various judgments of the Tribunal which would indicate the provisions of Rule 5 of the Cenvat Credit Rules would be applicable even if the amount of credit is accumulated before the notification is issued. All the issues have not been considered in a proper perspective by the lower authorities. – matter remanded back.

  ---

• 2010 (7) TMI 116 - CESTAT, BANGALORE
  

  Tour operator services – composite services – services are provided within India and out of India - appellant undertakes a tour of holy places like Jordan, Israel and Egypt etc. for which he charged consolidated amount which includes value of Air Ticket, accommodation, food, sightseeing, visa charges etc. – Held that: - Chartered Accountant’s certificate was not produced before the adjudicating authority – matter remanded back

  ---

• 2010 (7) TMI 110 - CESTAT, CHENNAI
  

  Penalty- held that- there is no deliberate intention to evade payment of service tax thus set aside the penalty under section 76 and 78 but uphold under section 77. The appeal is partly allowed.

  ---

• 2010 (7) TMI 109 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI
  

  Cenvat credit on inputs and input services- The respondent is a manufacturer of pesticides and they are availing Cenvat credit on inputs and input services. Show cause notice was issued alleging that part of the sand was sold by the respondents as such to M/s. Punjab Chemicals and Crop Protection Ltd. and in view of the same, the credit taken on input services associated with procurement of the sand was not eligible. The Commissioner (Appeals) has set aside the order of the original authority. Held that- as the Commissioner (appeals) not consider the submission made by the authority thus remand back the matter.

  ---

• 2010 (7) TMI 105 - CESTAT, CHENNAI
  

  Refund- The assessee’s claim for refund of unused input service tax credit availed for rendering output service exported by them has been partly disallowed to the extent of Rs.28,432/- and Rs.26,927/-. The reason for holding that credit is not admissible is that input services are not directly related to the output service provided by the assessees. Held that- in the light of the decision of KBACE Tech Pvt. Ltd. Vs CCE & ST, Bangalore [2010 (18) STR 281], set aside the impugned orders and remit the case to the adjudicating authority to decide afresh. The appeals are thus allowed by way of remand.

  ---

• 2010 (7) TMI 104 - CESTAT, CHENNAI
  

  Notification No.32/2004-ST dt. 3.12.04- the Revenue in the present appeals on the ground that the assessees did not follow the procedure prescribed under the Board’s circular dt. 27.7.2005 and did not produce declarations of GTA. In the light of the decision of CCE Vapi Vs Unimark Remedies 2009 -TMI - 34416 - CESTAT, AHMEDABAD, Commissioner (Appeals) held that abatement is admissible to the assessees. Held that- the benefit of abatement under Notification No.32/20004 cannot be denied to the assessees. Therefore, no reason to interfere with the impugned orders and accordingly uphold the same and dismiss the appeals.

  ---

• 2010 (7) TMI 103 - CESTAT, CHENNAI
  

  Penalty- payment of service tax before the issuance of SCN- In this case the appellants have collected the service tax amount but not promptly paid to the department as per the finding of the lower appellate authority. In such a case, leniency cannot be shown to the appellants and Section 80 is not applicable but the appellants have paid service tax amount of Rs.5,35,888/- on 30.7.2005 before issue of the show-cause notice, and along with interest. Held that- they are liable to penalty of Rs.91,370/-. Accordingly, the penalty of Rs.6,29,229/- determined by the authorities below is reduced to an amount of Rs.91,370/-. The appeal is thus partly allowed.

  ---

1 ....234567