Home Case Index All Cases Service Tax 2008 2008 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 121 to 140 of 1464 Records

• 2008 (12) TMI 58 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI
  

  Respondent is a 100% EOU manufacturing cotton yarn paid commission to the foreign based company during 9.7.04-30.10.2005 - tax was demanded on the payment of the service rendered by the foreign based company, who has no office in India – as per Circular No. 36/4/01 dt. 8-10-2001, service provided beyond the territorial waters will not attract service tax - demand on services relating to identified offshore services cannot be subjected to service tax during the relevant period is acceptable

  ---

• 2008 (12) TMI 57 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI
  

  Agreement with M/s Sagar allowing them to run restaurants in the name of ‘Nirulas’ - agreement covers plan for the restaurant area, location of various facilities, the specification for the furniture etc. - held that where the agreement conferred operational autonomy & responsibility on the contracted party, the relationship is not one of consultancy - there is no management consultancy - Nirulas are paying service tax as franchise services, which appears to be more appropriate classification

  ---

• 2008 (12) TMI 56 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI
  

  Security service - non-payment of tax – contention of appellant that they received the service charge without the amount of service tax from their client and therefore, they are not liable to pay the tax, is not accepted - appellant deposited a portion of the tax before passing of the adjudication order & he is a small entrepreneur so penalty u/s 76 is reduced - demand of tax & interest upheld – since appellant provided the service to a semi-Government body, penalties u/s 78 is not warranted

  ---

• 2008 (12) TMI 54 - CESTAT, KOLKATA
  

  Adjudicating Authority while upholding the service liability on assessee held that he had carried out a contract for maintenance and repair work over wells - Adjudicating Authority in the impugned Order does not throw light as to the extent of examination made by him on the basis of bills, scope of work and the nature of contract - impugned Order suffers from lack of reasons of decision - violation of natural justice – matter remitted back to the learned Adjudicating Authority

  ---

• 2008 (12) TMI 52 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI
  

  Credit was denied on payment of tax to the overseas commission agent - held that the payment to the overseas commission agent is not an input service. Prima facie, we find that the applicant made out a case for waiver of tax and penalty. Accordingly, tax and penalty is waived. Stay application is allowed.

  ---

• 2008 (12) TMI 50 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI
  

  Supply of goods manufactured, civil work, installation and commissioning of equipments etc. - issue relating to vivisecting a composite contract for the purpose of service tax stands referred to Larger Bench in the case of C.C.E, Raipur vs. M/s BSBK Pvt. Ltd.- therefore, Stay is granted

  ---

• 2008 (12) TMI 49 - CESTAT NEW DELHI
  

  Tour Operator – appellant submission that he was plying vehicles which had Stage Carriage Permit and they cannot be treated as that of a contract carriage and therefore, they cannot come under the category of Tourist Vehicle and therefore, their activity cannot be treated as Tour Operator, is accepted - vehicles were never run as ‘tourist vehicles’, as envisaged under Section 2(43) of Motor Vehicles Act.” – Therefore, appeal is allowed

  ---

• 2008 (12) TMI 48 - CESTAT NEW DELHI
  

  Non-payment of tax - appellant is a small entrepreneur, engaged in the business of courier service - appellant has already deposited the tax with interest before issue of adjudication order - there was dispute on levy of tax on proprietary firm as to whether it would be treated as commercial concern - Hence the penalties imposed on the appellant are not warranted. Accordingly, the penalties are set aside. Demand of tax and interest are upheld

  ---

• 2008 (12) TMI 44 - CESTAT AHEMDABAD
  

  Whether the laying down of pipe line for supply of water would get covered by definition of “Commercial and Industrial services” - - direction to deposit a part amount was made - issue prima facie stand decided by the Tribunal decision in the case of Indian Hume Pipe Ltd. that– where it was held that construction of pipe line for supply of water cannot be held to be an activity of Commerce or Industry – therefore in present case, direction to deposit a part amount would be unjust – stay granted

  ---

• 2008 (12) TMI 43 - HIGH COURT RAJASTHAN
  

  CBEC letter dated 20/9/2004 communicating Amnesty Scheme - tax, interest etc. already paid, before expiry of the period provided in the Scheme i.e. 30.10.04 - so benefit of the scheme is available to the assessees, who were already registered though belatedly & had deposited the entire tax and interest, before the cut off date, prescribed in the Scheme i.e. 30.10.04 - if the amount of penalty has been deposited by the assessees, then it need not be refunded to them – revenue’s appeal dismissed

  ---

• 2008 (12) TMI 41 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
  

  Provisions of Rule 2(1)(d)(iv) can not create any tax liability which is not authorized by law. Before insertion of section 66A with effect from 18-4-2006, there was no authority to levy service tax on Import of service. Explanation below section 65(105) did not give any authority to levy service tax on import of services.

  ---

• 2008 (12) TMI 1 - CESTAT, CHENNAI
  

  Commissioner demanded service tax, interest, penalties from the appellants for the construction services rendered by them during the period 16-6-2005 to 31-7- 2007 - Commissioner has recorded that the appellant has paid an amount of Rs. 77,94,751/- being service tax due from the appellant for the period August 2006 to May 2007 & interest for the delay in payment of service tax - payments already made by the applicant are adequate for the purpose of Section 35F(2) - Accordingly, stay is granted

  ---

• 2008 (11) TMI 722 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
  
  ... ...
  ... ... ..... r wilful misstatement or suppression of fact or contravention of any of the provisions. In the present case, none of the contingencies can be said to exist. The contention that respondent-assessee became liable to pay service tax and file return by virtue of Amendment Act of 2003 loses sight of the fact that the transaction of providing services had taken place between 16-11-1997 and 1-6-1998. The assessee had already made payment for the services rendered to the Transport Operators and it was not possible to deduct tax from the payment already made and deposit the same with the Union of India. 7. In the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, the impugned order of Tribunal holding that the show cause notice was issued beyond the prescribed period of limitation does not suffer from any legal infirmity so as to warrant interference. Accordingly, in absence of any question of law, as proposed or otherwise, much less a substantial question of law,the appeal is dismissed.

  ---

• 2008 (11) TMI 710 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD
  
  ... ...
  ... ... ..... 1997-98 to 2002-2003. 2. Heard both sides. We find that we need not to go into the merits of the case in view of Larger Bench decision in the case of M/s. Hindustan Zinc Ltd. v. CCE, Jaipur reported in 2008-TIOL-1149-CESTAT-DEL-LB 2008 (11) S.T.R. 338 (Tribunal-LB), wherein it was held that prior to 1-5-2005, the respondent was not liable to pay the tax wherein services were provided by foreign service provider who did not have office in India. The demand relates to the period 1997-98 to 2002-2003. 3. Therefore, on the ground of limitation alone, the appeal is rejected. Cross objection also gets disposed of.

  ---

• 2008 (11) TMI 666 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD
  
  ... ...
  ... ... ..... he Commissioner in this regard deserves to be upheld.” In the above said order, the Hon’ble Tribunal has clearly held that as the electricity is not excisable, the Cenvat credit is not available even at the premises of the wind mills and therefore, the appellants is not eligible to avail Cenvat credit claimed in this regard. The ratio of the above judgment squarely applies to the present appeal as the issues are identical in nature, accordingly the appellants are not entitled to avail the Cenvat credit in the present case.” Learned advocate Shri P.V. Sheth fairly agrees that the issue is squarely covered by the earlier decisions of the Tribunal in case of Rajhans Metals P. Ltd. 2007 (8) S.T.R. 498 (Tri.-Ahmd.). He further submits that the said decision stand followed in case of M/s. Atul Auto Ltd. being Order No. A/332/WZB/AHD/08, dated 29-2-2008. 3. In view of the above, I find no merits in the present appeal and reject the same. (Pronounced in Court)

  ---

• 2008 (11) TMI 601 - KERALA HIGH COURT
  
  ... ...
  ... ... ..... r consideration and decision is, whether by adding of green chilly, ginger etc. to the butter milk, does the character of the butter milk would change, to fall it under the Entry other than Entry 49 of the First Schedule to the KGST Act? 5. Admittedly, the assessee is effecting sales of sambharam. For the preparation of sambharam, the assessee would add ginger, chilly and a pinch of salt to the butter milk. Mere addition of the ginger, chilly and a pinch of salt would not change the commodity as such. The sambharam continues to be the butter milk, and, therefore, in our opinion, the Tribunal was fully justified in annulling the orders passed by the assessing authority which was confirmed by the first appellate authority, and, further treating that sambharam is an item which would fall under Entry 49 of the First Schedule to the KGST Act. 6. In that view of the matter, while affirming the orders passed by the Tribunal, we reject the tax revision petition. Ordered accordingly.

  ---

• 2008 (11) TMI 600 - CESTAT CHENNAI
  
  ... ...
  ... ... ..... were not persons registered with the department as service providers. Therefore, there was no question of their availing the benefit under Notification No. 12/2003-S.T., dated 10-9-2004 and cenvat scheme. In any case, there is no dispute that none of the notices had proposed the ground on which demands came to be confirmed by the original authority and affirmed by the Commissioner (Appeals). Notices held that the appellants being availers of GTA were not entitled to exemption under Notification No. 32/2004-S.T., dated 3-12-2004. The impugned orders denied the benefit on the ground that the appellants had not satisfied the conditions prescribed in the Notification. In the circumstances, I find that the appellants have made prima facie case against the demands and penalties. Accordingly, there shall be waiver of pre-deposit and stay of recovery of tax and penalties as per the impugned orders till final disposal of the appeals. (Order pronounced and dictated in the open Court)

  ---

• 2008 (11) TMI 599 - CESTAT MUMBAI
  
  ... ...
  ... ... ..... t entities. It was laid down that such committee shall consist of Cabinet Secretary of the Union, the Chief Secretary of the State concerned, the Secretaries of the departments concerned of the Union and the State and the Chief Executive Officers of the undertakings concerned. The ld. Counsel has also filed copies of correspondence entered into between the appellant and the Union Cabinet Secretariat. We wanted to know whether the above Committee was constituted. Neither side has been able to confirm the position. If such committee is in place, its clearance would be required for us to proceed with this appeal. If it is not, we are of the view that this appeal can proceed without what is called lsquo COD clearance rsquo . Hence it has become imperative for us to make sure whether the aforesaid committee is in place or not. Accordingly, we direct the JCDR to obtain authentic information from the Union Cabinet Secretariat and report to the Bench on 10-2-2009. (Dictated in Court)

  ---

• 2008 (11) TMI 598 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD
  
  ... ...
  ... ... ..... tment in terms of Notification No. 19/5/2003. At this stage, we take note of the Tribunal decision in the case of Daeliam Industrial Co. - 2006 (3) S.T.R. 124 (Tri.) 2003 (155) E.L.T. 457 (Tri.) as confirmed by Hon rsquo ble Supreme Court and the same being followed by the Tribunal in a number of decisions. One such reference can be made to the Tribunal rsquo s decision in the case of Diebold Systems (P) Ltd. v. CST, Chennai - 2008 (9) S.T.R. 546 (Tri. - Chennai). As such, we find that the issue is prima facie covered in favour of the appellant and we allow the stay petition accordingly. (Dictated and Pronounced in the open Court)

  ---

• 2008 (11) TMI 597 - CESTAT CHENNAI
  
  ... ...
  ... ... ..... ervice tax on payments to workers such as wages, bonus, incentives contribution to provident fund etc. 2. We find that strong prima facie case has been made out by the applicant in the light of the Tribunal rsquo s decision in Sangamitra Services Agency v. CCE 2007 (8) S.T.R. 233 and Malabar Management Services v. CST 2008 (9) S.T.R. 483 . The pre-deposit of the tax together with interest and penalty is therefore dispensed with and recovery thereof stayed until the pendency of this appeal. (Dictated and pronounced in open court)

  ---

1 ....34567891011........ 74