|
Advanced Search Options
Service Tax - Case Laws
Showing 1 to 20 of 115 Records
-
2012 (8) TMI 1079 - CESTAT MUMBAI
... ...
... ... ..... and molasses (excisable item) andd bagasse. Thus, in our considered view, the amendment in Finance Act, cited by Shri Nagesh Pathak, AR and the Board Circular would not make any difference in the facts and, circumstances of the case. Moreover, neither the show-cause notice nor the impugned order in appeal mentions as to which common CENVAT credit availed inputs have been used in manufacture of sugar and molasses (dutiable final products) and bagasse (exempted final product). Since Bagasse emerges at sugarcane crushing stage, there is no possibility of any input-chemicals etc. having been used at that stage. Accordingly, we find merit in the contention of the appellant. The impugned order is set aside. The appeal and station applications are allowed. 4. We find no reason to take contrary view. As the issue involved in the present case is already decided by the above mentioned decisions hence, the impugned orders are set aside and the appeals are allowed. (Pronounced in Court)
-
2012 (8) TMI 1075 - CESTAT NEW DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... nance Act, 1994 are pari materia with the provisions of Section 11A of the CEA, 1944. Accordingly, I hold that proviso to 73(1) is not applicable in this case and the extended period of limitation is not applicable for demanding duty on commercial training and coaching centre services.” 3. As against the above findings of Commissioner, the Revenue has again raised the issue from the angle of merit of the case. The Revenue has not advanced any reasons to rebut the finding of the adjudicating authority on the issue of limitation. Admittedly there was confusion or doubt during the relevant period. Moreover, the Tribunal’s judgment was in favour of the assessee. Subsequent amendment made under the law with retrospective effect cannot be considered relevant for attributing suppression or misstatement to the assessee. We find no reason to interfere in the impugned order of Commissioner. Revenue’s appeal is accordingly rejected. (Pronounced in the open Court)
-
2012 (8) TMI 1048 - CESTAT BANGALORE
... ...
... ... ..... lated condition attached to the Notification. Therefore, prima facie, as against the demand mentioned at Sl. No. (ii) above, the documents adverted to by the learned counsel will not support the plea of limitation. We also find that the above documents were not referred to in the appellant’s reply to the show-cause notice. In this scenario, the plea of limitation is also not prima facie acceptable. The present application does not plead financial hardships. 4. On the aforesaid facts and circumstances, we direct the appellant to pre-deposit an amount of ₹ 25,00,000/- (rupees twenty five lakhs only) within six weeks and report compliance to the Assistant Registrar on 5/11/2012. Assistant Registrar to report to the Bench on 13/11/2012. Subject to due compliance, there will be waiver of pre-deposit and stay of recovery in respect of the penalties imposed on the appellant and the demands mentioned at Sl. No (i) & (ii) above. (Pronounced and dictated in open Court)
-
2012 (8) TMI 999 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD
... ...
... ... ..... 5. On careful consideration of the submissions made by both sides and perusal of the records, we find strong force in the contentions raised by the ld. counsel that the show cause notice which has been issued for taxing the appellant under the category of banking and financial services has been given, a go-away by the adjudicating authority, confirmed the demand under the business auxiliary services for which no notice has been issued to them. We also find that as per coordinate bench decision in the case of Excel Fin Cap Ltd., issue as regards the non inclusion of terminal charges recovered from the investors for the taxable value is covered in their favour. In short, we find that the appellant has made out a prima-facie case for the waiver of pre-deposit of the amounts involved. Accordingly, application for the waiver of pre-deposit of the balance amounts involved is allowed and recovery thereof stayed till the disposal of the appeal. (Dictated and pronounced in the Court)
-
2012 (8) TMI 938 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... e collecting the tax. However, having come to know that levying tax on the central office is non-permissible under Article 285 of the Constitution of India, they have refrained, but the petitioners are liable to pay service charges towards water supply, street-lighting, approach roads and sewage. According to the petitioners, the counsel fairly submits that the petitioners have been paying service charges towards water, electricity and sewage. 6. The said submission is placed on record. I am of the view that the subject matter is no longer res integra inasmuch as the Apex Court of the case of Municipal Corporation has ruled that the tax cannot be collected in the garb of services charges, the impugned notice is liable to be interfered. 7. Having said so, the petition stands disposed of. Annexure “A” is quashed. Fresh demand shall be issued by the Corporation in terms of the observations made above 8. Rule is issued and made absolute to the extent indicated above.
-
2012 (8) TMI 937 - CESTAT CHENNAI
... ...
... ... ..... re reported in 2010 (17) STR 266 (Tri.-Bang.) wherein it was held that air freight is also not liable to service tax in the hands of freight forwarders or multimodal transporters. Following the observations made by this Tribunal in Gudwin Logistics (supra), the applicants made a out a prima facie case at this stage, So we waive the requirement of pre-deposit of the service tax, interest and various penalties and stay the recovery thereof during the pendency of the appeal. Dictated and pronounced in open Court.
-
2012 (8) TMI 932 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... t itself, which permits the applicant to make an application for partial withdrawal of the case and even for deleting any prayer that it may have sought earlier. In view of the fact that the section itself permits the petitioner to do so, the order passed by the appellate Tribunal is not justified, it is set aside. The Tribunal will reconsider the matter on merits and pass fresh orders in accordance with law with reference to the provisions of Section 86 (4) of the Act that is to say that procedural law too shall be followed. The matter shall be reconsidered by the Tribunal within a period of one month from the date a certified copy of this order is being placed before it. This Writ Petition is allowed as above. No costs.
-
2012 (8) TMI 920 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Penalty - Rule 15 of the CCR, 2004 - Held that: - Admittedly, the liability to pay penalty for the wrongful availment of the credit of service tax has been inserted under Rule 15(2) with effect from 27th February 2010. Since the dispute in the present case relates to the period prior to 27th February 2010, no fault can be found with the decision of the CESTAT in deleting the penalty - Appeal dismissed.
-
2012 (8) TMI 907 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Waiver of Pre-deposit - Commercial training or coaching centre - Tribunal declined to waive pre-deposit by relying upon a decision of the Authority for Advance Ruling (AAR) in the case of CAE Flight Training (India) Ltd., [2012 (7) TMI 669 - CESTAT, MUMBAI] - Appellant wants full waiver relying upon the decision in the case of Gujarat Flying Club [2014 (1) TMI 1449 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD] - Held that:- once the Co-ordinate Bench of the CESTAT in a similar case has granted total waiver of pre-deposit much after the decision of AAR, in the absence of any valid reasons ought not to have declined to following the decision of the Co-ordinate Bench. In these circumstances, the order of CESTAT dated 7-6-2012 is quashed and set aside and the Tribunal is directed to hear the appeal on merits against the Order-in-Original dated 30-11-2011 without insisting for pre-deposit. - stay granted.
-
2012 (8) TMI 817 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI
Plea against dismissal of appeal by Commissioner(Appeals) on the point of limitation by observing that the same stands filed after normal period of limitation as also after the condonable period of 30 days - Held that:- Issue is well settled that Commissioner(Appeals) has no jurisdiction to condone any delay beyond the condonable period of 30 days.
On assessee contention that order dated 18.06.08 was served to him on 30.10.10 it is held that it is found that Revenue has placed documentary evidences showing receipt of adjudication order by Shri Virendra Yadav at appellant's residence. As per para 47(2) of Adjudication Manual, the service of orders through local range offices is an approved mode of service. Also, Asstt. Commissioner in his reply dated 26.10.10 to assessee's letter dated 25.09.10 has clearly mentioned that adjudication order was served on 18.06.08. It is only the photocopy of the adjudication order which again stands supplied to the appellant. As such the service of the photocopy of the adjudication order for the second time cannot be taken as relevant date of receipt of the order for the purposes of limitation - Decided against assessee
-
2012 (8) TMI 816 - CESTAT, AHMEDABAD
Club or association services - company incorporated, consequent upon the order of High Court for the purpose of treating the effluent discharged by the industries located in the GIDC area, Vapi - demand of service tax confirmed on the ground that the appellant is an association of industrial units in Vapi formed for the purpose of setting up and running common facility for treatment and recycling of effluent and solid waste discharged by the units who are required to become a member compulsorily and pay one time fee as well as monthly subscription - Held that:- Notification No. 1/2012 - S.T. dated 17.03.2012, the words "of dyeing units" was omitted. Consequent upon amendment made by Notification No.1/2012-S.T., club or association service provided by an association in relation to a common facility set up for treatment and recycling effluent or solid waste is exempted from the service tax. This notification has been given retrospective effect by Section 145 of Finance Act, 2012 from June, 2005. Therefore appellant is squarely covered by the exemption Notification and the activities undertaken by them is not liable to service tax - Decided in favor of assessee
-
2012 (8) TMI 815 - CESTAT, KOLKATA
Whether debit in the Cenvat Credit Account cannot be considered as pre-deposit - held that:- Pre-deposit made by the appellants by way of debiting in Cenvat Credit Account is sufficient for the purposes of fulfilment of requirement of pre-deposit ordered by the ld. Commissioner - Commissioner (Appeals) is directed to hear this matter without insisting on any further deposit
-
2012 (8) TMI 814 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI
Demand of service tax - business of real estate development and construction residential houses - appellant in terms of their agreement with their customers for construction of residential units on a plot of land owned by them construct the duplex type houses for their customers – Held that:- It is only w.e.f. 1-7-2010, that explanation was added to Section 65(zzzh) of the Finance Act, 1994 providing that for the purpose of this sub-clause - for the period prior to 1-7-2010, the appellant’s activity cannot be treated as service provided by them to their customers
-
2012 (8) TMI 786 - CESTAT, AHMEDABAD
Penalty under Section 76 of the Finance Act – Held that:- Appellant had paid the service tax and the interest as soon as the same was pointed out during the adjudication process and paid the penalty under Section 78 to the extent of 25% as per the law and is not contesting the penalty under Section 77 of Finance Act, 1994 - penalty imposed under Section 76 is not sustainable
-
2012 (8) TMI 785 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI
Penalty – Held that:- Tax demand has already been discharged with interest - section 80 is invokable - it may not be proper to penalise under section 76 and 78 of the Finance Act, 1994 - to remove hardship, it would be proper to direct the appellant to deposit 25% of the demand towards penalty under section 78 - appeal is allowed partly
-
2012 (8) TMI 784 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Payment of service tax though not applicable - belated payment has been used towards CENVAT Credit – Held that:- It must be treated as voluntary payment of service tax. If that amount is to be voluntarily permitted to be utilized towards CENVAT Credit, it is apparent that for late payment of service tax, interest amount needed to be paid
-
2012 (8) TMI 783 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI
Completion and finishing services – denial of benefit of Notification No. 1/2006-S.T. – Held that:- There is clear provisions in the Notification No. 1/2006-S.T. that 67% abatement would not be available in respect of completion and finishing services and since the activities of the appellant is completion and finishing services in respect of the construction of commercial or industrial complexes, 67% abatement would not be available to them - since the amount on which the VAT has been paid is the value of the material used for providing the services, this material cannot be said to have been sold within the meaning of this terms as defined is Section 2(h) of the Central Excise Act - benefit of Notification No. 12/2003-S.T. would not be available
-
2012 (8) TMI 755 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
Demand of interest – Held that:- Though the credit of duty is entered in the account books unless the said credit is duly taken to discharge the duty payable the liability to pay interest for the delayed payment would not arise - In the case of wrong availment before the said duty is taken, if the entry is reversed it amounts to not taking the credit at all and therefore when admittedly no duty is payable, the question of payment of interest on the delayed payment of duty would not arise - in fovour of the assessee
-
2012 (8) TMI 753 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
Claim of Cenvat Credit on the pipes and valves - assessee sought to obtain advance ruling from AAR on eligibility to avail CENVAT Credit of excise duty paid by it on pipes and valves to the manufacturer, against the Petitioner's output service tax liability under the taxable service category of "transport of goods through pipeline or conduit? AAR rejected the application - Held that:- As the petitioners are Government Companies being subsidiaries of Gujarat State Petronet Ltd. The holding company and each subsidiary company are separate and distinct legal entities and every company has an independent right to file an application before the AAR for pronouncement of an advance ruling on the questions raised in the applications. Section 96A(b)(ii) and (iii) support the case of the petitioners that a joint venture company could be an applicant. Further a resident falling within the class of mentioned in sub-clause (iii) could also maintain an application. The petitioners fall within the ambit of section 96A(b)(iii), therefore, we hold that the petitioners being a step-down subsidiary company of a Government Company are covered within the definition of the "applicant" in terms of section 96A(b) of the Finance Act. The applications filed by the petitioners before the AAR under section 96C were maintainable.
As the petitioners and the holding company were separate and distinct legal entities and had independent rights and the AAR does not possess absolute discretionary power. Under section 96D(2) proviso (a) the important words used are, “in the applicant’s case”, which clearly explains that if in the applicants own case any matter is pending or had been decided then the AAR could dismiss the application - The AAR could not reject the applications of the petitioners under its discretionary power as there were no exceptional circumstances, or abuse of the legal process or rendering incompatible decisions concerning the same parties or any anomalous situations would have arisen if the AAR would have pronounced advance ruling. The petitioners had not yet entered into any transaction and the advance ruling had been sought on the proposed activity or service, therefore, the petitioners’ applications were maintainable and the AAR was required to pronounce advance ruling under section 96D of the Finance Act. Even assuming that the question pending before the CESTAT in the matter of holding company and the question raised before AAR by the petitioners were similar, if the AAR pronounces advance ruling on the question raised by the petitioners, then, in our opinion, it will not result in conflicting or incompatible decision between the same parties, as the order of the AAR would be binding only on the petitioners and the tax authorities in view of section 96E of the Finance Act - in favour of assessee.
-
2012 (8) TMI 752 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI
Demand of service tax - manufacture of VP sugar and molasses - They engaged individual farmers for transportation of sugarcane from collection centres to the factory and paid charges for such transportation. The Appellants were not paying any service tax on such services received by them for transportation of goods – Held that:- Entry in the Act defines "Goods Transport Agency" as one which issues consignment notes and thereafter Rule 4B says that "Goods Transport Agency" has to issue consignment note - That is to say if a goods transport operator does not issue consignment note he does not come within the meaning of "Goods Transport Service" and then the requirement under Rule 4B also is not enforceable – pre-deposit waived
........
|
