Home Case Index All Cases Service Tax 2009 2009 2009 (8) Service Tax - 2009 (8) 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 41 to 60 of 135 Records

• 2009 (8) TMI 724 - CESTAT, KOLKATA
  

  GTA Service – cenvat credit utilized for payment of service tax on GTA service - Commissioner (Appeals) stated that the Appellant is liable to pay Service Tax in cash – Held that: - Commissioner (Appeals) has not taken into consideration the contentions of Appellant in respect of the provisions of Cenvat Credit Rules and the Service Tax Rules – mater remanded to Commissioner - Appeal is allowed

  ---

• 2009 (8) TMI 722 - CESTAT, CHENNAI
  

  Demand of Service tax – limitation - notice issued beyond one year period does not contain any ingredients such as wilful suppression, fraud, mis-statement etc – set aside the tax demand and penalties - allow the appeal

  ---

• 2009 (8) TMI 721 - CESTAT, BANGALORE
  

  Waiver of pre-deposit – demand – Business Auxiliary Service - applicant had booked Hotel rooms for their clients on discount and this discount has been considered by the lower authorities as commission – Held that: - applicant already been deposited service tax - waiver of pre-deposit is accepted

  ---

• 2009 (8) TMI 720 - CESTAT, BANGALORE
  

  Waiver of pre-deposit - Cenvat credit paid on the service tax – documents for availing cenvat credit - credit has been availed on the bills, on which all necessary information as per requirement of the law was available - bills were genuine - reason for denial of credit is on the ground that supplier has defaulted in discharging the service tax liability – Held that: - this cannot be a reason for denying the Service Tax credit - as they have already paid the amount of invoice to the supplier - waiver of the pre-deposit - allowed

  ---

• 2009 (8) TMI 719 - CESTAT, BANGALORE
  

  Waiver of pre-deposit – demand – limitation - applicant had on 14-11-1998 sought the clarification of the Revenue authorities as regards the discharge of service tax liability - Revenue authorities did not reply - clarified that the service tax liability has to be calculated by working back on the amounts received from the clients - clarifications could have been given to the applicant by the authorities when they are approached - prima facie case for the waiver of the pre-deposit – waiver - allowed

  ---

• 2009 (8) TMI 678 - CESTAT, MUMBAI
  

  Penalty - Commissioner (Appeals) confirmed demand of service tax, interest thereon and equal amount of penalties on assessee. On stay application, assessee contended that it had already paid amount against differential tax liability of service tax as said amount was collected by it erroneously from customers and same may be adjusted against impugned demand. Held that - since assessee had already deposited sum along with interest although collected erroneously, treating same as sufficient, pre deposit of penalty was to be waived and recovery thereof was to be stayed.

  ---

• 2009 (8) TMI 667 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
  

  Mandap Keeper Service - Whether the petitioners, who are basically engaged in promoting different sports, are liable to pay service tax on the services rendered by it to its members? Petitioners are members club and not prietary club. Held that- service tax cannot be imposed twice by demanding from person carrying out business of Mandap Keeper and from members club for using space for construction or using it as Mandap. Question of imposition of service tax not arise when transfer of property absent. Both member and club are same entity. Use of premises by members of club not means letting out. Member club not covered under Mandap Keeper Service. Demand set aside.

  ---

• 2009 (8) TMI 652 - CESTAT, BANGALORE
  

  Stay-pre-deposit- The demands as indicated herein above has arisen on the ground that the applicant has collected the service tax from his purchasers of fiats discharged the service tax liability partly by utilising the credit of the service tax paid on the input services by his sub-contractors and partly by paying the amount in cash. It is the revenue’s case that the applicant need not discharge the service tax liability and if that be so, the amount of credit taken by him on the service tax paid by his service provider is ineligible as service tax to him. Service tax before the issuance of Show Cause Notice. Held that- precedent decisions holding credit if eligible, not deniable once tax liability discharge. Output service considered taxable by appellant and hence eligible to take credit. Pre deposit waived.

  ---

• 2009 (8) TMI 649 - CESTAT, BANGALORE
  

  Stay / dispensation of pre deposit – eligibility of availing cenvat credit - . It is seen that the appellant had entered into an AMC, but services were rendered by the dealers of some other manufacturers of the engines. Since the issue is contentious, we find that all the submissions made by the learned counsel needs to be gone into detail based on evidences on record and the agreements entered by them with their clients. All these things can be done only at the time of final hearing. Accordingly, we are of the considered view that the applicant has not made out a prima fade case for complete waiver. The applicants needs to be put to some conditions. Accordingly, the applicant is directed to freeze an amount of Rs.1,00,00,000/- (Rupees one crore only) in the RG 23 Cenvat account till the disposal of the appeal

  ---

• 2009 (8) TMI 638 - CESTAT, BANGALORE
  

  Repair of roads – works contract service – stay of demand – Held that: - the applicant has registered themselves with the Commercial Tax Department, for the works contract executed by them for the purpose of rendering services of improvement/reasphalting of the roads. It is seen that their activity has been assessed by the Commercial Tax Department as such and the tax is deducted at source. We are of the considered view that these activities would get covered under the works contract, then the activity rendered prior to 1-6-2007 will not be taxable under the management, maintenance or repair services. Further we find from 1-6-2007 even if the activity gets covered under the works contract, there is specific exclusion for works contracts in respect of roads. We find that the applicants had made out a prima facie case for the waiver of the pre-deposit of the amount involved in respect of works contract as regards the improvement and repair of the roads.

  ---

• 2009 (8) TMI 634 - CESTAT, BANGALORE
  

  Appeal before tribunal – seeking adjournment – Held that: - Under the law, no appellant can be given more than three adjournments whereas the appellants have already taken four adjournments. No one is also present today on behalf of the appellants despite notice taken by them. As such, the request for further adjournment is not reasonable and the same is rejected. - the penalty imposed under Section 78 of the Act sustained penalty under Section 76 of the Act set aside

  ---

• 2009 (8) TMI 633 - CESTAT, AHMEDABAD
  

  Export of Services - business auxiliary services - services rendered to a foreign manufacturer by procuring orders from the Indian customers – Circular No. 111/5/2009-S.T., dated 24-2-2009 - Held that: - The said circular clarifies that the location of the service receiver is the important factor and not the place of performance. The phrase used “inside India is to be interpreted to me that the benefit of the service should accrue outside India”. As such it stands observed that it is possible that export of service made a place even when all the relevant activities take place in India so long as the benefits of these services accrue outside India. Where the benefit in terms of promotion of a business of a foreign company accrued, the fact that the place of performance was in India the same would not be taxable. – matter remanded back

  ---

• 2009 (8) TMI 620 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI
  

  Cargo Handling Services – Cenvat Credit – The Revenue submits that freight charge was not included in the assessable value and, therefore, respondent is not eligible to avail the credit. Revenue also contending that credit is not admissible as services used beyond place of removal. In the light of decision of ABB Ltd. v. CCE & ST, 2009 -TMI - 34139 - CESTAT, BANGALORE, held that-order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) is upheld. Appeal filed by the Revenue is rejected.

  ---

• 2009 (8) TMI 618 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI
  

  Service tax paid voluntarily – Penalty – The appellant had voluntarily applied for service tax registration and also paid service tax. Commissioner (Appeals) held that no suppression made by the appellant thus appeal dismissed. Revenue again filed a cross objection against this order on the ground of jurisdiction of bench. In this case (Tri-Del) held that single member bench not to be burdened with rehearing and disposal thus the cross objection becomes infructuous.

  ---

• 2009 (8) TMI 617 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI
  

  Penalty u/s 76 and 78 simultaneously – waiver of penalty – reason not given by the commissioner (Appeal) to waive penalty - In this case (Tri-Del) held that the order of the Ld. Commissioner granting immunity from section 76 is reversed. Revenue succeed in this appeal and penalty imposed by Ld. Adjudicating Authority sustains.

  ---

• 2009 (8) TMI 616 - CESTAT, BANGALORE
  

  Security Agency Services – Reimbursement of Tax – The Appellant are engaged in construction of residential buildings and are registered under commercial or industrial service and construction of complex services. The appellants were found to have rendered various other services without paying tax due. In this case (Tri-Bang) waives pre-deposit of the adjudged dues and stay recovery thereof.

  ---

• 2009 (8) TMI 507 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI
  

  Cargo handling Services-Penalty- The appellant was providing services of loading, stacking and unloading of cement in the godowns of M/s. Sarav Shaktiman Traders (P.) Ltd. and M/s. J.K. Cement Works on contract basis. They received notice from the Service Tax Department that they are liable to pay service tax under the category of “Cargo Handling Services.” On 11-6-2004, the appellant deposited an entire amount of Tax of Rs. 43,081 along with interest of Rs. 4,991. A show-cause notice dated 4-8-2004 was issued proposing to impose penalty on various sections of the Finance Act, 1994. Original Authority imposed penalty of Rs. 90,662 under the provisions of sections 75A, 76, 77 and 78 of the said Act. The appeal was dismissed for non-compliance of stay order. Held that- It appears that the appellant acted in a bona fide manner and deposit entire amount of Service Tax along with interest before issue of the show-cause notice. Thus, it is a fit case for waiver of pre-deposit of entire amount of penalty for the purpose of hearing appeals for merits. As the Commissioner (Appeals) has not decided on merits, it is appropriate to send back the matters to Commissioner (Appeals) to decide on merits.

  ---

• 2009 (8) TMI 506 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI
  

  Cenvat Credit- The Commissioner (Appeals) set aside denial of credit of Rs. 1,81,264 on outward transport service, against which Revenue filed the appeal. In the light of the decision of ABB Ltd. v. CCE & 2009 -TMI - 34139 - CESTAT, BANGALORE, held that- assessee eligible to avail credit.

  ---

• 2009 (8) TMI 505 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI
  

  Cenvat Credit- The issue involved in this case is, as to whether service tax credit is correctly being availed by the appellants in respect of leased lines provided by BSNL under Rules 3 and 5 of Service Tax Credit Rules, 2002 during the period from 1-10-2002 to 31-3-2004. In the light of the decision of CCE v. Data Infosys Ltd. 2006 -TMI - 664 - Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi held that- impugned order is set aside. Appeal filed by the appellants is allowed with consequential relief.

  ---

• 2009 (8) TMI 502 - CESTAT, BANGALORE
  

  Advertising agency’s services- The assessee was engaged in erection of hoarding and renting them to customers for exhibiting their advertisements. It also erected hoardings and sold them. The adjudicating authority demanded service tax from the assessee under the category of ‘Advertising agency’. Before the Commissioner (Appeals), the assessee contended that activity such as hiring of space for display of advertisement was taxable w.e.f. 1.5.2006 and therefore impugned activity was not taxable for period prior to 1.5.2006. The Commissioner (Appeals), confirm the demand. Held that- the order could not be passed in accordance with the law thus the matter is remand back for passing a speaking order after following the principal of natural justice

  ---

1234567