|
Advanced Search Options
Service Tax - Case Laws
Showing 121 to 135 of 135 Records
-
2009 (8) TMI 91 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD
SSP / Small Service Provider – Exemption - DSA – promotion or marketing of banking service – the value of taxable service – held that - Commissioner (Appeals) has observed that even if the appellant’s activities are held to be taxable under “Business Auxiliary Service”, they would still be not liable to pay any service tax in terms of Notification No.6/2005-ST. While dealing with the above contention of the Commissioner (Appeals), Revenue has submitted that the plea of availability of notification was not taken by the assessee before the original adjudicating authority, and as such, the Commissioner (Appeals) was not justified extending the benefit of the same to the appellant – the contention of the revenue can not be accepted - Merely because the assessee did not claim the same before the original adjudicating authority and raised the issue for the first time before Commissioner (Appeals), cannot be held to be a ground of denying the benefit of the notification, if the same is otherwise available
-
2009 (8) TMI 90 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD
GTA Service – Declaration for availing abatement – held that - It is not understood how the adjudicating authority, in the impugned order, has placed reliance on a Letter No.V/DGST/3-GTO/02/ 2005, dt.30.3.05 of DG, Service Tax, which was subsequently withdrawn on 11.4.05, ignoring the Board’s Circular No.5//1/2007-STl dt.12.3.07 - In fact, this observation of the adjudicating authority is misplaced; as it is not on this issue that demand of service tax was raised under the Show Cause Notice dt.27.2.08, but rather on the grounds that ‘the service receiver was not eligible for 75% exemption from payment of service tax because the requirement as clarified by the Board under Circular No.B1/6/2005-TRU, dt.27.7.05 was not fulfilled on consignment notes received by the appellants.” – benefit of abatement allowed.
-
2009 (8) TMI 89 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD
Appeal before Comm(A) – Power to condone delay - Commissioner (Appeals) has dismissed the appeal filed by the assessee on the ground of limitation by holding that he does not have powers to condone the delay beyond the period of 30 days.- held that - appeal was in fact filed within time but was submitted in the wrong office. The Tribunal in the above case has considered various precedent decisions laying down that the time spent before the wrong forum should not be taken into consideration while calculating the limitation. The appellants have admittedly been pursuing at each level for transfer of the appeal papers to right forum - It was equally the duty of Joint Commissioner, before whom the appeal was wrongly filed, to transfer the papers to the right office. If that would have been done, there would have been no question of any delay requiring any condonation – appeal considered to be filed within time
-
2009 (8) TMI 88 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD
Penalty for non payment / delayed payment of service tax – section 78 – waiver of penalty - when the Revenue directed them to pay the tax, they paid the entire amount of service tax of Rs. 2,50,220/- for the entire period from July 2001 to March 2006 – held that - there was a doubt in the field as regards above activities which were clarified by the Board only on 06.11.2006. As such, I am of the view that benefit of Section 80 is required to be extended to the appellants – penalty set aside.
-
2009 (8) TMI 73 - CESTAT, CHENNAI
Commercial training or coaching – profit motive – Held that -. Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals) has held that the activity of conducting training programmes on various subjects for government organizations, non-government organizations, bodies, corporate and members of the public on payment of prescribed fees does not fall under the taxable service of ‘commercial training or coaching’ as to attract service tax liability, as it was not on the basis of profit motive – Held that - There is no dispute that in the present case the respondents were a non-profit organisation registered under provisions of Section 25 of the Companies Act, 1956 which provision is applicable to non-profit organizations – order of the commissioner (appeals) upheld.
-
2009 (8) TMI 65 - DELHI HIGH COURT
Concept of mutuality – membership of club – Jurisdiction of high court to accept appeal - service tax on service provided by club to its members – CESTAT held that when the service is provided by a club to its members, it does not attract service tax – held that - determination of any question in relation to rate of duty or to the value of goods for the purpose of assessment and when it is decided by the CESTAT, appeal there against is provided to the Supreme Court under Section 35L(b) and no such appeal is permissible to the High Court – appeal dismissed on the ground of jurisdiction
-
2009 (8) TMI 62 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI
Cenvat Credit – Input Service - The appellant take Cenvat credit of the duty paid on the goods and input services, which is utilized towards payment of service tax on their output service. The Department, however, while treating their entire services consisting of operation and maintenance of the power plant as ‘repair and maintenance services’ and charging service tax on this basis on the gross amount being charged by the appellant for their services, seeks to deny Cenvat credit in respect of certain input services, which according to the Department, pertain only to the operation and not to maintenance – held that - having treated the appellant’s activity as one composite service, the Department cannot split it into plant operation and plant maintenance for the purpose of permitting Cenvat credit and deny Cenvat credit in respect of input goods and services used for plant operation – Cenvat credit allowed.
-
2009 (8) TMI 50 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Whether the Appellants, who are manufacturers of non-alcoholic beverage bases (concentrates) are eligible to avail credit of the service-tax paid on advertising services, sales promotion, market research and the like availed by them and utilize such credit towards payment of excise duty on the concentrate - As now judicially recognized, Service tax is VAT which in turn is destination based consumption tax in a sense that it is on commercial activities and is not a charge on the business but on the consumer. – Further, credit is availed on the tax paid on the input service, which is advertisement and not on the contents of the advertisement. Thus it is not necessary that the contents of the advertisement must be that of the final product manufactured by the person advertising – Held that manufacturer can avail of the credit of the services tax paid by him for payment of CENVAT duty
-
2009 (8) TMI 45 - CESTAT, CHENNAI
Business Auxiliary Service – Bonafide belief – Export of Servcies – Circular 36/4/01 dated 8/10/2001 – Held that - the circular which is squarely to the effect that the service provided outside beyond the territorial waters of India are not liable to Service Tax was valid and in force until it was withdrawn on 10.05.07. It cannot be accepted that the assessees could not have had a bonafide belief on the basis of the above. – Penalties imposed u/s 76 and 78 deleted.
-
2009 (8) TMI 22 - CESTAT, KOLKATA
Penalty u/s 76 – Deposit of service tax suo motu before issuance of SCN - Appellant relied on the Board’s Circular dated 03.07.2007, which is in respect of issuance of show cause notice for levy of penalty in cases when tax is paid suo motu by the assessee. This Circular is not placed before the lower authority and hence, has not been taken into consideration. As the Board has issued a clarification and the authorities are bound by the Circular issued by the Board, therefore I find that it is a fit case for re-consideration of the Adjudicating Authority after taking into consideration the Board’s Circular. – Matter remanded for reconsideration.
-
2009 (8) TMI 21 - CESTAT, KOLKATA
Penalty – Amount of Service Tax and Interest deposited before issuance of SCN - held that - the penalty is leviable, even if the duty and interest have been paid before issue of show cause notice, and there is no discretion with the authorities to impose lesser amount of penalty than the duty confirmed. In these circumstances, the first thing to be seen is whether there is any suppression or mis-representation with intent to evade payment of service tax. If there is any suppression or mis-representation with intent to evade payment of service tax, then the ratio of the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court is fully applicable - In the impugned Order, there is no finding in this regard. Matter remanded for deciding afresh
-
2009 (8) TMI 20 - CESTAT, CHENNAI
Penalty - It is clear that the assessees were aware of their liability to pay service tax as they had been paying tax for the previous period. No argument has been raised either before the adjudicating authority or the lower appellate authority that penalty should be set aside by extending the protection under Section 80 of the Finance Act, 1994. Even at this stage, no case has been made out for setting aside the penalty in the absence of any bona fide belief on the part of the assessees that they were not required to pay service tax for the reason that they were very well aware of their liability and had actually discharged liability during the periods prior to the period in dispute. Financial hardship is the only ground raised for belated payment of service tax which is not a ground for holding that assessees are not liable to penalty. – Levy of penalty upheld
-
2009 (8) TMI 19 - CESTAT, CHENNAI
Cenvat Credit on GTA Service - GTA service for which the assessees paid service tax was output service and accordingly CENVAT credit could be used for discharging GTA service availed by them. The period in dispute in the present case is January 2005 to September 2005 which is prior to the amendment by which the Explanation to Rule 2(p) of the CENVAT Credit Rules was deleted. Therefore, during the relevant period the assessee was entitled to utilize CENVAT credit paying duty on final products are output service
-
2009 (8) TMI 2 - CESTAT, KOLKATA
GTA Service – Exemption under notification no. 32/2004 dated 3-12-2004 – necessary declaration - Central Board of Excise & Customs issued instruction No. (F.No.137/154/2008-CX.) dated 21.08.2008 and clarified that the benefit of Notification No.32/04 is also to be extended in past cases if the tax payer produced a general declaration from the transport agency to the fact that neither credit on input or capital goods used for the provision of service has been taken nor the benefit of Notification No.12/2003 has been taken by them – Credit allowed.
-
2009 (8) TMI 1 - CESTAT, KOLKATA
Dry Cleaning Service - contention of Revenue is that as the business premises carries the board 'dry cleaners' and they are also issuing the Bills as dry cleaners therefore they are liable to pay service tax – Held that since there was no dry-cleaning machine or any record in relation therefore use of essential raw material for dry-cleaning process found in the premises – demand is not sustainable.
....
|
