|
Advanced Search Options
Service Tax - Case Laws
Showing 61 to 80 of 135 Records
-
2009 (8) TMI 479 - CESTAT, BANGALORE
Outdoor caterers- The appellants are engaged in the business of preparation and supply of meals and snacks to various Airlines. They are also engaged in packing and handling of food, loading and transportation of food trolleys; storage, handling and setup of catering equipments; storage and handling of dry stores and other recycling items; cleaning of equipment, handling of waste, cabin service, and laundry services. The provision of food items is undertaken after entering into contracts with respective Airlines. The appellants are registered with the department as provider of services under the category of ‘Outdoor Catering Services’ and discharge service tax liability on the entire amounts collected towards handling charges, delivery charges, hi-lift charges, and bond handling charges. The appellants did not pay service tax on account of provision of meals/food items to the Airlines. In the light of the decision of LSG Sky Chefs (India) (P.) Ltd. v. CST 2009 -TMI - 33134 - CESTAT BANGLORE, held that- once the appellants paid sales tax on a portion of the value of the contract, then, simultaneously service tax could not be demanded as they were mutually exclusive. Thus, we vacate the impugned demands of service tax and penalties and allow these appeals.
-
2009 (8) TMI 469 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI
Penalty- The assesese firm had provided services to company ‘V’ under the categories of ‘Rent-a-cab-services’ and ‘Business Auxiliary Service’. The partner of assesese firm is also Director of copany ‘V’. Superintendent of Central Excise, while scrutinizing the record of the Company noticed that the assessee had not paid tax in respect of Rent-a-Cab services and Business Auxiliary Services. In the month of January, 2007, the Superintendent of Central Excise directed the assessee to deposit the tax along with interest. The assessee on 24-1-2007 paid service tax of Rs. 1,90,902 and Rs. 2,56,833 for the period from 1-4-2000 to November, 2006 in respect of Rent-a-Cab services and for the period from 1-4-2004 to 31-3-2006 in respect of Business Auxiliary Services. They also paid the interest of Rs. 1,38,140 on 31-5-2006. A show-cause-notice dated 24-9-2007 was issued proposing to impose penalty under sections 76, 77 and 78 of Finance Act, 1994. Held that- I find that there is a contravention of the provisions of the Act with intent to evade payment of tax, so, the Commissioner (Appeals) rightly upheld the penalty under sections 77 and 78 of the Act. The appeal filed by the assessee has no merit. However the asseesee deposited entire amount of tax and interest before issue of show cause notice, in terms of proviso to section 78, penalty would be 25 per cent of tax amount.
-
2009 (8) TMI 446 - CESTAT, BANGALORE
Recovery of service tax- The demand of service tax has arisen on the allegation that appellants had collected the amount of service tax but not deposited the same with Government. Held that- We find that there is a violation of principle of natural justice in this case, in not providing the relied upon documents to the appellant along with show-cause notice, thus the matter needs to be reconsidered by the Adjudicating Authority. Impugned order is set aside and the matter is remanded back to the Adjudicating Authority to reconsider the issue afresh, before coming to any conclusion.
-
2009 (8) TMI 445 - CESTAT, CHENNAI
Outdoor caterer services- Notification No. 12/03, dated 20-6-2003- The appellants are supplying food on board the flights of M/s. Air India. The impugned order passed by the adjudicating Commissioner demands service tax on the entire value received by the appellants from M/s. Air India. It has been argued on behalf of the appellants that part of the value relates to supply of food items on which they are paying VAT/Sales Tax. They have also claimed benefit of Notification No. 12/03, dated 20-6-2003. In the light of the various decisions held that- the present appellants are also entitled to the benefit of Notification No. 12/03. However, since the lower authority has not examined the details furnished by the appellants for the purpose of granting the benefit of Notification No. 12/03, we set aside the impugned order, and remand the matter to him for a fresh decision. The appeal is allowed by way of remand.
-
2009 (8) TMI 437 - CESTAT, CHENNAI
Cenvat credit of service tax- distribution of credit by input service distributor. Total credit received was proportionately distributed by Kolkata corporate office over different units including those situated in exempted area. Adjudicating commissioner vide impugned order proceeded to re-distributed amount allocated to Chennai unit over other units based on proportionate production. Appellant’s contention that such re-distribution by commissioner having jurisdiction over only one unit not justified when authorities having jurisdiction over only one unit not questioned initial distribution done in Kolkata. Held- Commissioner having jurisdiction of Chennai unit entitled to examine and ensure that credit allocated to Chennai unit is proper but he has to take into account total credit received by corporate office and manner in which distributed. Credit available to Chennai unit artificially lowered, not sustainable. Matter remanded to Commissioner for a fresh decision.
-
2009 (8) TMI 414 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI
Service tax liability- franchise fees and royalty- whether the service tax was payable on part of royalty and franchise fees? The revenue made a demand of service tax, as the word ‘service to be provided’ has been inserted in the act w.e.f. 16.06.2005, thus service tax realized by the assessee prior to providing service needed to be deposited. Commissioner (Appeals) was of the view that franchisee fees collected during the period prior to levy of service tax on franchisee fees should not be taxed. But the evidence that had been relied by the Commissioner (Appeals) had not been disclosed except the submission of the assessee which received his consideration. Held that- the matter is remand back for thorough examination on the basis of the evidence.
-
2009 (8) TMI 413 - CESTAT, BANGALORE
Cenvat Credit – Goods Transport Services- The issue involved in this case is regarding eligibility of the appellant to avail Cenvat credit on service tax paid on ‘Goods Transportation Agencies’ beyond the place of removal. Both the lower authorities had held that the service tax paid on goods transportation charges beyond the place of removal is not an eligible input credit. The Commissioner (Appeals) has upheld the Order-in-Original. In the light of the decision of ABB Ltd. v. CCE & ST 2009 -TMI - 34139 - CESTAT, BANGALORE, held that order passed by commissioner is set-aside and appellant is eligible to avail credit.
-
2009 (8) TMI 412 - CESTAT, BANGALORE
Cenvat Credit-Input services- The confirmation of the demand has arisen on the ground that the applicant had availed CENVAT Credit on the Service Tax paid on catering services, Rent-a-cab services, car maintenance services etc. The adjudicating authority confirmed the demand along with interest, imposed penalties. On an appeal, ld. Commissioner (Appeals) directed the appellant to deposit 50 per cent of the confirmed amount as pre-deposit by the lower authorities for hearing and disposing appeal. In the light of the decision of CCE v. GTC Industries Ltd 2008 -TMI - 31592 - CESTAT MUMBAI, held that- Commissioner (Appeals) has not given any findings on the merit of the case. Thus the impugned order is set-aside and remand back the matter.
-
2009 (8) TMI 411 - CESTAT, MUMBAI
Technical Testing and Analysis Services- The applicants have entered into manufacturing agreement with customers and as per agreement they are required to manufacture the goods out of raw materials and packing materials supplied by the customers and clear the same on payment of duty. During the process of manufacture, the customers required them to make in process analysis of semi-finished goods as well as final products so that the goods meet the Pharmacopoeial specifications as well as specifications provided by these customers. Department asked service tax as the services fall in the category of Technical testing and analysis services. Commissioner (Appeals) held that applicants are providing service of testing and also analysis, while undertaking research work and that they are charging separately for testing and analysis and the value of the services provided are available. Hence, the same are taxable under the category of technical and analysis services tribunal upheld the order of Commissioner (Appeals)
-
2009 (8) TMI 410 - CESTAT, BANGALORE
Transport of goods- Notification No. 32/2004 dated 3.12.2004- Assessee was recipient of services of a goods transport agency. It had discharged service tax liability on 25 per cent of value of services by availing of benefit of abatement under Notification No. 32/2004, dated 3.12.2004. Adjudicating Authority denied abatement on the ground that as per requirement of above notification assessee had not produced any certificate or declaration by transport agency nor any consignment notes and, accordingly confirmed demand. On appeal, assessee produced evidence by way of original notarized affidavit, certifying payment of transport charges to transporters with required declaration as prescribed under Notification No. 32/2004-ST, dated 3.12.2004. Assessee also requested for time to produce certificates/affidavits in respect of cases where transporters had not given same. Commissioner (Appeals) held that assessee was entitled to abatement in respect of affidavit filed by various transporters, however, he held that assessee was not entitled to any abatement on value for which assessee had failed to produce declaration even belatedly. Held that- order passed by Commissioner (Appeals) is upheld.
-
2009 (8) TMI 408 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI
Penalty- Suppression- The appellant deposited service tax with interest before issuance of Show cause Notice. Held that- remanding the matter to the Commissioner (Appeals) for re-examination on the quantum of penalty.
-
2009 (8) TMI 407 - CESTAT, AHMEDABAD
Transport of goods services- Notification No. 32/2004-ST, dated 3.12.2004 and 12/2003-ST,dated 20.06.2003- Assessee was a recipient of services of ‘Goods Transport Agency’. It availed benefit of Notification No. 32/2004-ST, dated 3.12.2004 and filed declaration from transporter, on plain paper, consignment notes and on letterheads, that transporters had not availed any credit on inputs/capital goods nor had taken benefit of Notification No. 12/2003-ST, dated 20.06.2003. Adjudicating authority denied the said benefits. Commissioner (Appeals) allowed benefit of Notification No. 32/2004-ST, dated 3.12.2004 on the ground that conditions of said notification had been complied with. Held that- no infirmity in the order of Commissioner (Appeals), thus the appeal of revenue is rejected.
-
2009 (8) TMI 399 - CESTAT, MUMBAI
Cenvat Credit- Input Services- The assessee had a canteen inside its factory premises. It availed Cenvat Credit of service tax paid on outdoor catering services employed in factory availed in that canteen. Lower authorities disallowed said credit. In the light of the decision held that outdoor catering services employed in factory canteen is an input service. Thus the impugned order is liable to set-aside.
-
2009 (8) TMI 398 - CESTAT, MUMBAI
Cenvat Credit-Garden maintenance services- Whether the appellant is entitled for availment of Cenvat credit on garden maintenance service. In the light of the decision of Kirloskar Oil Engines Ltd. v. CCE, Aurangabad, held that- appellant is not entitled for Cenvat Credit for the Garden Maintenance Services. Thus the appeal is rejected.
-
2009 (8) TMI 397 - CESTAT, BANGALORE
Services received from outside India- Reverse charges- The appellants herein are the recipients of services and are liable to discharge service tax liability as provided by provisions of rule 2(1)(d)(iv) of Service Tax Rules, 2002 on the ground that as service providers being non-resident or from outside and do not have office in India, service tax liability needs to be discharged by the service receiver/appellant. In the light of the decision of Indian National Shipowners Association v. UOI 2009 -TMI - 32013 - HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY held that- service tax liability on the recipient of the services would arise only from 18.4.2006 set aside the impugned order and appeal is allowed.
-
2009 (8) TMI 393 - CESTAT, BANGALORE
Services received from abroad during August 2002 to 18-4-2006 - We find that the demand is confirmed against ABB, as recipient of the impugned services, as per rule 2(1)(d)(iv) of the Rules. Rule 2(1)(d)(iv) authorizes the authorities to recover service tax leviable on services provided by a person who is non-resident or is from outside India and does not have any office in India, from the person receiving such service in India. In Indian National Shipowners Association’s case (supra) the Hon’ble High Court had held that demand of service tax for the period prior to 18-4-2006 invoking rule 2(1)(d)(iv) of the Rules was not sustainable.- in view of above decision, demand is not sustainable for period prior to 18-4-06 – further it could not be held that liability to tax on services received from foreign companies was not known to assessee, plea of limitation on ground of revenue neutrality could not be advanced - However, since the department was aware of the nature of the impugned transactions as early as in July 2005 from the agreements furnished and tax paid from the ST 3 returns periodically filed by ABB as an assessee providing taxable services, we find the claim that show-cause notice dated 5-12-2007, was barred by limitation
-
2009 (8) TMI 392 - CESTAT, BANGALORE
Transport of goods- Cenvat Credit-output service-Notification No. 32/2004-ST dated 3.12.2004- Assessee, a recipient of goods transport service paid service tax by availing abatement of 75 percent of freight paid by it in terms of Notification No. 32/2004-ST, dated 3.12.2004. Revenue denied said benefits and demanded service tax short paid. In the light of the judgment of Andhra Pradesh Paper Mills Ltd. v. 2007 -TMI - 1909 - CESTAT, BANGALORE held that- the assessee was eligible for the amatement. - Assessee paid service tax on freight charges incurred on transportation of goods by utilizing Cenvat credit. Revenue denied the said credit and demanded service tax on ground that services of transportation of goods by road in goods carriage constitute input service for manufacture of excisable goods and assessee was not eligible to utilize accumulated cenvat credit for payment of service tax on freight and same had to be discharged by way of cash payment through TR-6. in the light of the decision of Andhra Pradesh Paper Mills Ltd. v. 2007 -TMI - 1909 - CESTAT, BANGALORE, held that- issue is settled in favour of assesse, thus the appeal filed by revenue are rejected.
-
2009 (8) TMI 391 - CESTAT, MUMBAI
Scientific or technical consultancy services- Royalty- The Commissioner of Central Excise has demanded service tax from the appellant for the period 2001-2003 under the head “Scientific or Technical Consultancy Service” and has imposed penalties on them. The demand of service tax is on the royalty received by the appellant from M/s. Dhariwal Tobacco Products Ltd. (‘DTPL’ for short) as consideration for transfer of the trade name ‘Manikchand’ and certain formulae to be used for the manufacture of Pan Masala, Gutka, etc. Held that- the Commissioner has not rendered any finding on the status of the appellant, except making an averment to the effect that the appellant is a ‘Technocrat’. This finding appears to be unsupported by evidence and transfer of technical know how, brand name, etc. is covered by intellectual property right services w.e.f. 10.09.2004 while the disputed period is 2001-2003. thus there will be waiver of pre-deposit and stay of recovery in respect of the amounts.
-
2009 (8) TMI 390 - CESTAT, BANGALORE
Commercial training or coaching services- Computer software services-Notification No. 9/2003-ST, dated 20.06.2003- The assessee was engaged in imparting education in the branches of biotechnology and pharmacy through software. The original authority found that the assessee had rendered taxable service classifiable under ‘commercial training or coaching’ during the period from 1.7.2003 to 30.09.2004. He rejected the assessee’s claim that the training imparter was ‘computer software services exempt vide Notification No. 9/2003-ST dated 20.06.2003. Commissioner (Appeals) also affirm the order of original authority. Held that- the claim for exemption classifying the appellants as “vocational training institute” under Notification No. 9/2003, dated 20-6-2003 is canvassed before us for the first time in the proceedings. Such a claim was not made before the lower authorities. In the circumstances, to remand the matter for fresh adjudication by the original authority. Appeal is allowed by way of remand back.
-
2009 (8) TMI 385 - CESTAT, CHENNAI
Penalty- No ground has been made out in the appeal against the invoking of section 80 by the adjudicating authority whose order has been upheld by the lower appellate authority. Therefore, this is not an appeal which is fit for admission. It is dismissed as not admitted.
|
