|
Advanced Search Options
Service Tax - Case Laws
Showing 21 to 40 of 1464 Records
-
2008 (12) TMI 649 - CESTAT NEW DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... collected service tax from their customers on the sale price whereas the sub-contractors paid service tax at the construction price of flats. The finding of the Commissioner that the amount collected by the applicant has to be paid themselves to the Government. Prima facie, it is found that the contractors paid tax of Rs. 3.48 crores. The learned D.R. submitted that the applicant collected more amount from their clients. Therefore, the submission of the learned Advocate regarding payment of tax by the contractors against the demand of tax would be looked in detail at the time of appeal hearing. Consequent upon the facts and circumstances of the case, we direct the applicant to deposit Rs. 30,00,000.00 (Rupees Thirty Lakhs only) within a period of eight weeks. Upon deposit of the said amount, the pre-deposit of balance amount of tax and penalty would be waived, till disposal of the appeal. Compliance to be reported on 27th February 2009. (Dictated and pronounced in open court)
-
2008 (12) TMI 648 - CESTAT BANGALORE
... ...
... ... ..... rom the private parties. The point at issue is whether the appellants are liable to discharge Service Tax liability on the said services rendered on the gross amount collected from the private parties. It was urged that strictly speaking, the said services would not come within the purview of Scientific and Technical Consultancy as defined in the Finance Act. In any case, he informed the Bench that though the appellants are contesting the issue, they had already deposited a sum of Rs. 66,32,596/-. As the appellants had already discharged a major portion of the Service Tax demanded, the said amount can be treated as pre-deposit for hearing the appeal. The pre-deposit of balance amount of Service Tax and interest are waived and recovery stayed till the disposal of the appeal. No coercive measures should be taken by Revenue to recover the amounts till the appeal is decided by this Bench. Appeal to come up for hearing on 16th January, 2009. (Pronounced and dictated in open Court)
-
2008 (12) TMI 647 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD
... ...
... ... ..... tc. For the similar submissions, the learned SDR submits that in the case of Reliance Industries, it was admissible in respect of the transport allowance being reimbursable expenses and it would not be applicable to the fact of the present case. As such, the learned SDR prays for rejection of the modification application and consequent dismissal of appeal as the said order does not stand complied with by the appellants. 5. After appreciating the submissions made by both the sides and after going through the grounds raised in the modification application, we find no justifiable reason to modify the earlier orders. Accordingly, we dismiss the modification application. As the appellants have deposited an amount of Rs. 30.30 lakhs, we extend the period, in the interest of justice, to deposit the balance amount by another four weeks, as already a lot of time has been given to the appellants. Matter to come for ascertaining compliance on 6-1-2009. (Dictated and pronounced in Court)
-
2008 (12) TMI 646 - CESTAT BANGALORE
... ...
... ... ..... ch, it appears that there is no application of mind by the lower authorities. In view of this fact, this is a fit case for remand to the Original authority. Hence I remand the matter to the Original authority to examine these services and to decide with regard to taking of input credit on the service tax paid on the said services in the light of Rule 3 of Cenvat Credit Rules. The Original authority should pass an order after giving a personal hearing to the appellants within a period of three months from the date of receipt of this order. Thus both the stay application and the appeal are allowed by way of remand to the Original authority. (Pronounced and dictated in the open court)
-
2008 (12) TMI 645 - CESTAT NEW DELHI
Stay of operation - construction and sale of residential flats - taxability - Held that: - reliance placed in the case of MAGUS CONSTRUCTION PVT LTD Versus UNION OF INDIA [2008 (5) TMI 18 - HIGH COURT OF GAUHATI], where it was held that in the case of sale of flats, there was no service and no service tax is imposable - stay of operation cannot be granted - stay application rejected.
-
2008 (12) TMI 644 - CESTAT NEW DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... ty of Rs. 1,000.00 (Rupees One Thousand only) under Section 75A, Rs. 10,000.00 under Section 76 and Rs. 1,000.00 under Section 77 of the Finance Act, 1994. Commissioner of Central Excise revised the order and enhanced the penalty equal amount of tax under Section 78, penalty of Rs. 150.00 per day under Section 76 and penalty 2 per month also under Section 76. We find that the applicant already deposited the tax with interest and the penalty imposed by the Original Authority. In view of that pre-deposit of balance amount of penalty is waived, till disposal of the appeal. Stay application is allowed. (Dictated and pronounced in open court)
-
2008 (12) TMI 643 - CESTAT NEW DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... unt was deposited is claimed to be not the correct ones. As a consequence, the appellant has been saddled with demand of service tax along with interest and penalty also has been imposed. 3. Prima facie, merely because the amount has been paid in a different bank and in a different Account number, fastening tax liability once again is not justified. The factual position is not clear. The Commissioner is directed to conduct necessary verification and submit a report, inter alia, indicating - (a) whether the service tax paid by BSNL, Moradabad has reached the Government Accounts, (b) Whether this error can be rectified by transfer entries in the concerned Accounts and (iv) any other relevant points. 4. This verification report will be submitted within a month rsquo s time and matter is fixed for hearing on 27th January, 2009. The appellant is also directed to render necessary assistance in conducting this verification. (Order dictated and pronounced in open court on 16-12-2008)
-
2008 (12) TMI 642 - CESTAT BANGALORE
... ...
... ... ..... ence of the service tax paid to the Government to any other person including the foreign company. Further, they have stated that as per the Supreme Court rsquo s decision in Kuli Fireworks Industries v. CCE - 1997 (95) E.L.T. 3 (S.C.) wrongly paid service tax is liable to be refunded along with interest. rdquo 7. Prima facie, we do not find any merit in department rsquo s stand, because the appellants have received the amount in foreign exchange and obviously the party situated in India would not have paid the amount in foreign exchange. In any case, this issue is squarely covered by the decision of this Bench in the case of Blue Star Ltd. v. CCE, Bangalore - 2008 (11) S.T.R. 23 (Tri.-Bang.). Hence, we allow the stay application granting waiver of pre-deposit of the amount demanded in the impugned order. No coercive action should be taken to recover the amount till the disposal of the appeal. Matter to come up for hearing in due course. (Pronounced and dictated in open Court)
-
2008 (12) TMI 641 - CESTAT BANGALORE
... ...
... ... ..... levying them to Service Tax. Moreover, he states that show cause notice has invoked longer period by alleging suppression of facts. He invited our attention to the correspondence which the appellants had with the department to show that they had not suppressed any facts. 4. The learned JCDR strongly reiterated the impugned order. 5. On a careful consideration of the issue, we are of the view that prima facie the appellants have a strong case on merits. In our view, the benefit of Notification No. 13/2003 is admissible for the appellants during the relevant period. There is also no justification for invocation of longer period. In these circumstances, we order complete waiver of the pre-deposit of the dues demanded in the impugned orders till the disposal of the appeals. No coercive action should be taken by the revenue till the appeals are disposed of. The stay applications are allowed. Matter to come up for hearing on 3rd March, 2009. (Pronounced and dictated in open Court)
-
2008 (12) TMI 640 - CESTAT CHENNAI
... ...
... ... ..... B.43/l/97-TRU dt. 6-6-97 clarifying that payment made by CHA on behalf of the client, such as statutory levies and various reimbursable expenses incurred are not to be included for computing the service tax and that the service tax is to be computed only on the gross service charges (Prima facie, the expenses incurred by the CHA in the instant case were reimbursable as seen from the reply to the SCN). The pre-deposit amount involved is, therefore, waived and recovery thereof stayed pending the appeal. (Dictated and pronounced in open court)
-
2008 (12) TMI 639 - CESTAT CHENNAI
... ...
... ... ..... vices or process, identified with any other person for the reason that they are selling Coke which is similar to Pepsi which is under the franchise agreement. However, we note that the franchisee agreement was for selling marrybrown fried chicken which certainly is nowhere similar to Coke which is sold by the applicants and therefore they do prima facie satisfy Condition No. 4 of the franchise agreement. Since no prima facie case for total waiver has been made out for full waiver, we direct the appellants to predeposit Rs. 5,00,000/- (Rupees five lakhs only) towards service tax within eight weeks from today and on such deposit the predeposit of the balance amount of tax, interest and penalty are dispensed with and recovery stayed thereof till the final disposal of the appeal. Failure to comply with the above direction shall result in vacation of stay and dismissal of appeal without prior notice. 2. Compliance to be reported on 5-3-2009. (Dictated and pronounced in open Court)
-
2008 (12) TMI 638 - CESTAT NEW DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... on the ground that the service tax paid on overseas agent on the overseas commission is not input service. Prima facie, we find that the appellant paid the tax on overseas commissions. Therefore, the pre-deposit of tax and penalty is waived till disposal of appeals. 3. All the stay applications are allowed. (Dictated and Pronounced in the open Court)
-
2008 (12) TMI 637 - CESTAT NEW DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... elied upon the decisions of the Tribunal in the case of CCE, Jaipur I v. Bhiwadi Cylinders Pvt. Ltd. 2008 (11) S.T.R. 37 (Tri.-Del.) and Universal Cylinders Ltd. v. CCE, Jaipur-I 2007 (8) S.T.R. 628 (Tri.-Del) . The learned advocate also contested the demand of tax on limitation. 5. The learned SDR submits that the Tribunal had already held in a case that retreading of tyres amounts to repair. 5. After hearing both the sides, we find that prima facie, the process undertaken by the applicant amounts to reconditioning of old and worn out sugar mill rollers. We also find that the word ldquo reconditioning rdquo introduced in the definition on 16-5-05 and the applicant opted registration and paid the tax. Show cause notice was issued on 24-1-08. Prima facie, it is noticed that there was no intention to evade payment of tax. In view of that pre-deposit of tax and penalty is waived till disposal of appeal. 6. Stay application is allowed. (Dictated and Pronounced in the open Court)
-
2008 (12) TMI 636 - CESTAT BANGALORE
... ...
... ... ..... l is not able to provide the exact amount which has been received by them towards this activity which has been carried out by the applicants. In the absence of any clear evidence and the amounts received by them for this activity, we find that the issue needs to be gone into in detail. This can be done only at the time of final hearing. In view of this, we find that the applicants have not made out a prima facie case for the total waiver of the amount of the Service Tax involved. Accordingly, we direct the applicant to deposit an amount of Rs. 2,00,000/- (Rupees Two Lakh Only) collectively in both the stay petitions within a period of three months from today and report compliance on 11th March, 2009. Subject to such compliance reported, the condition for pre-deposit of the balance amount of Service Tax, interest and penalties involved in both the stay petitions stands waived and recovery thereof stayed till the disposal of the appeals. (Pronounced and dictated in open Court)
-
2008 (12) TMI 635 - CESTAT BANGALORE
... ...
... ... ..... only a person who issues consignment notes against the receipt of goods for transportation is GTA. Service tax is not on all transportation by road, but only on transportation by GTA. In any case, it was informed that the appellants, in all, had already paid an amount of Rs. 1,87,147/- by cash and Rs. 1,62,816/- by Cenvat. 3. On a careful consideration of the issue, we find that the appellant is challenging strongly the demands on merits. Moreover, a substantial amount has already been paid by cash and also by Cenvat. At this stage, we are of the view that the amounts already deposited may be treated as pre-deposit for the purpose of hearing the appeal. The pre-deposit of balance amount of duty and penalties is waived and its recovery stayed till the disposal of the appeal. The stay application is allowed. The Revenue shall not take any coercive action during the pendency of the appeal. The appeal to come up for hearing in its turn. (Pronounced and dictated in the open court)
-
2008 (12) TMI 634 - CESTAT NEW DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... The Commissioner (Appeals) set aside the Adjudication Order. 2. Ld. Advocate on behalf of the Respondents submits that the issue had already been referred to the Larger Bench of the Tribunal in the case of M/s. Panchmahal Steel Ltd. v. CC and C, Vadodara-II reported in 2008 (12) S.T.R. 447 (Tri. - Ahmd.) 2008-TIOL-1606-CESTAT-AHM. 3. In view of that, we do not find any reason for stay of operation of the order. Accordingly, all the applications are rejected. (Order dictated and pronounced in open court on 4-12-2008)
-
2008 (12) TMI 633 - COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE (APPEALS), MANGALORE
... ...
... ... ..... on activity or at the end or completion of the construction activity. Any advance, made by a prospective buyer, or deposit received by the petitioner-company, is against consideration of sale of the flat/building to such prospective buyer and not for the purpose of obtaining ldquo service rdquo from the petitioner-company. 15. The decision of Hon rsquo ble Gauhati High Court is superior to the ruling given by Authority for Advance Ruling, New Delhi. In view of this I feel that the appellant in the present appeal are not liable to pay service tax and it is for the contractors who were engaged by them to provide service to the appellant, are liable to pay service tax. The appellant in this case had booked flats and this transaction was sale and purchase of immovable property and therefore cannot attract service tax. The demand along with interest and penalties are not legal. ORDER 16. I set aside the demand, interest and penalties and allow the appeal with consequential relief.
-
2008 (12) TMI 549 - CESTAT, BANGALORE
Appeal to Commissioner (Appeals) - Limitation ... ... ... ... ..... appellants had filed the-appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) on 18-10-2007. On the above facts, we find that the appeal filed by the appellants is within the time frame as granted under Section 35 of the Central Excise Act, 1944. Undoubtedly, the applicant had not filed an application for condonation of delay. Since the delay is condonable and within the powers of the Commissioner (Appeals), he may consider to condone the delay under the provisions of Section 35 of the Central Excise Act, 1944. Therefore we direct the applicant to file an application for condonation of the delay before the Commissioner (Appeals) within a period of 30 days and on such application being filed, the Commissioner (Appeals) shall consider the same and decide the issue in respect of COD, stay and appeal, in accordance with law, on its merits. The Miscellaneous application is allowed. Stay petition and appeal is disposed off as indicated herein above. (Pronounced and dictated in the open Court)
-
2008 (12) TMI 369 - PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT
Penalty- The Assessee is a service provider under the category of Architect Service and delayed payment of service tax by 1197 days. The adjudicating authority imposed penalty of only Rs. 100/-, taking a lenient view. The revisional authority set aside the said order and held that assessee had not given any valid explanation, in absence of which, Section 80 of the Act could not be invoked for setting aside the penalty. On appeal of the assessee, the Tribunal set aside the order of revisional authority relying upon judgment of Karnataka High Court in the case of CCE Bangalore v. Sunitha Shetty 2005 -TMI - 170 - HIGH COURT (KARNATAKA) BANGLORE. Held that- remand the case to the Tribunal or to the revisional authority for fresh decision but having regard to the fact that the amount involved in this appeal is not significant, refrain from interfering with the impugned order while expressing our disapproval to the manner of disposal of the matter by the Tribunal.
-
2008 (12) TMI 365 - KERALA HIGH COURT
Delay in filing appeal- In this case Tribunal reject the appeal only on the ground that in the original order passed, there is a mention that, if for any reason, the petitioner is aggrieved by the original order, he has to question the same within 90 days from the date of the order. Apart from this reason, Tribunal has not assigned any other reason for rejecting the application filed by the petitioner. Held that-the delay is condone if sufficient reason exist thus, the Tribunal is expected to find out whether the applicant has shown sufficient cause. The Tribunal is directed to restore the appeal.
........
|
