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 81 to 100 of 135 Records

• 2009 (8) TMI 383 - CESTAT, CHENNAI
  

  Penalty- Commissioner (Appeals) dismissed the appeal preferred by the assessee for non-compliance with the direction for pre-deposit of Rs. 5 lakhs toward penalty without giving any findings. Held that- there is no finding, thus impugned order is set aside and remand back the matter.

  ---

• 2009 (8) TMI 382 - CESTAT, MUMBAI
  

  Cenvat Credit- Goods Transport services-Mobile phone service-credit card services-air travel agent- , the Adjudicating Authority has held that the appellants are entitled for Cenvat credit on the services as they have availed the credit within the provisions of law. Aggrieved by the said order, the revenue preferred an appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals). The Commissioner (Appeals), in turn, set aside the order passed by the Adjudicating Authority. Held that- the Commissioner (Appeals) setting aside the order, only in brief has held that the Cenvat Credit availed by the appellants are against the provisions of law, which is not acceptable, thus impugned order is set-aside. Appeal is allowed.

  ---

• 2009 (8) TMI 381 - CESTAT, AHMEDABAD
  

  Construction services- Notification No. 1/2006-ST, dated 01.03.2006- Assesee was engaged in construction services in respect of commercial and industrial building and civil structure. The assessee avail the abatement of 67 percent under Notification No. 1/2006-ST, dated 01.03.2006, which denied by the department on the ground that in respect of the some of their contracts entered into with the buyer, they have availed the Cenvat Credit on duty paid on the raw material. In the light of the decision of SMP Constructions (P.) Ltd. v. CCE&C 2009 -TMI - 35010 - CESTAT, AHMEDABAD held that benefit of notification is applicable, thus allow the appeal.

  ---

• 2009 (8) TMI 380 - CESTAT, BANGALORE
  

  Cenvat Credit- Input Services- Whether inclusion of inward transportation of input or capital goods and outward transportation of inputs or capital goods and outward transportation up to place of removal in definition of ‘input service’ by no means exclude services used for clearance of final product from place of removal from being treated as eligible input service in terms of main definition? - Whether, therefore, goods transport service in an input service even when used for clearance of final product from place of removal and availment of credit on same cannot be denied? Commissioner (Appeals) in the light of the decision of ABB Ltd. v. CCE&ST 2009 -TMI - 34139 - CESTAT, BANGALORE, held that the definition of “input service” has to be interpreted in the light of the requirements of business and it cannot be read restrictively so as to confine only up to the factory or up to the depot of manufacturers. - the services availed by a manufacturer for outward transportation of final products from the place of removal should be treated as an input service in terms of rule 2(l)(ii) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 and thereby enabling the manufacturer to take credit of the service tax paid on the value of such services.’ Tribunal held that Tribunal is correct and reject the appeal filed by revenue.

  ---

• 2009 (8) TMI 379 - CESTAT, BANGALORE
  

  Outdoor caterer’s services- Notification No. 12/2003-ST- The appellant has entered into agreement with various airlines for the supply of food and beverages to the Airlines in terms of which the appellant is required to render various activities. The amount of service tax has been confirmed by the Adjudicating Authority is in respect of the services that the appellant provided as ‘Outdoor Catering’ and is not entitled for the admissible inclusion/exemption and value of the services in terms of Notification No. 12/2003-ST as claimed by the appellants. In the light of the decision of LSG Sky Chefs (India) (P.) Ltd. v. CST 2008 -TMI - 31076 - CESTAT BANGLORE, in which held that supply of food/beverage to airline would amount to sale of the goods and since assessee had already paid VAT on value of goods thus no service tax levied, Held that- in view of the issue in appellant’s own case, settled in their favour, impugned order is not sustainable and is liable to be set-side and the appeal is allowed.

  ---

• 2009 (8) TMI 378 - CESTAT, BANGALORE
  

  Cargo handling services- Board’s Circular B-43/1/1997-BRU, dated 06.06.1997- The assessee was custom house agent. The original authority held that the assessee was also engaged in activity of cargo handling in the port premises which was appropriately classifiable as ‘Port Service’ confirmed demand of service tax. The Commissioner (Appeals) relaying upon the Board’s Circular B-43/1/1997-BRU, dated 06.06.1997 held that loading/handling of imported or exported goods, transferred from premises of the exporter, etc. were activities related to CHA Services, and therefore, the cargo handling services undertaken in the port premises were not liable to service tax under ‘Port Services’. In the light of the decision of Konkan Marine Agencies v. CCE 2007 -TMI - 2306 - CESTAT, BANGALORE held that-the appeal filed by the revenue against the impugned order is devoid of merit, thus reject it.

  ---

• 2009 (8) TMI 377 - CESTAT, BANGALORE
  

  Transport of goods-Freight-Notification No. 35/2004-ST, dated 03.12.2004- The appellant had collected freight amount separately from Steel Authority of India Ltd., by the supplies made in appellant’s own vehicle during the period December 2006 to January 2007. Lower authority confirms the demand of service tax based upon the Notification No. 35/2004-ST, dated 03.12.2004- being a consigner. In the light of the decision of MSPL Ltd. v .CCE 2009 -TMI - 32448 - CESTAT, BANGALORE CESTAT) held that appellants transport the goods in their own vehicle to the buyer. The buyer is a person who actually pays the freight. Thus the liability to pat tax is on the buyer not on the service provider. Therefore, Impugned order is unsustainable and liable to be set-aside.

  ---

• 2009 (8) TMI 376 - CESTAT, CHENNAI
  

  Services received from outside India- commission to a foreign agent- Department confirm a demand against the appellant on the ground that services of foreign collaborators for transfer of technical know-how were received, therefore assessee required to pay service tax from 01.01.2005. In the light of the decision of Indian National Shipowners Association v. Union of India 2009 -TMI - 32747 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT held that, liability to pay service tax arise from 18.04.2006 thus waive the requirement of pre-deposit the tax amount.

  ---

• 2009 (8) TMI 375 - CESTAT, CHENNAI
  

  Penalty- suppression- The assessees are aggrieved by the imposition of penalty u/s 78. Commissioner(Appeals) set aside the penalty u/s76 as there was some reasonable cause. Tribunal held that no argument given by the commissioner (Appeals) on the penalty u/s78 - thus the matter is remand back.

  ---

• 2009 (8) TMI 373 - CESTAT, CHENNAI
  

  Commission and installation services- valuation-Notification No. 12/2003 dated 20.06.2003- The assessee had supplied parts and other materials to customers during the course of providing erection, commissioning, and installation services. It excluded parts and materials from the value of taxable service, claiming exemption under notification No. 12/2003,dated 20.06.2003.The commissioner, merely going by figure in the balance sheet, quantified the demand of service tax against the assessee. Held that- impugned order was to be set aside and remand back the matter for fresh decision.

  ---

• 2009 (8) TMI 372 - CESTAT, MUMBAI
  

  Cenvat Credit-Input service- The assessee, an aircraft operator, availed credit of service tax paid/ reimbursed to airport authority of India for availing of the services of authority such as landing, parking and x-ray in connection with the operation of the aircraft owned by it. The lower authorities denied said credit on the ground that the services were not connected, directly and indirectly, in or in relation to the manufacture of final products and clearance of final products. In the light of the judgment of Force Motor Ltd. v CCE, held that-the aircraft was not used for business activities, any service tax paid on the services rendered by the authority on such aircraft need to be allowed as credit to the assessee. The appeal is allowed.

  ---

• 2009 (8) TMI 366 - CESTAT, AHMEDABAD
  

  Consulting Engineer’s Service- erection and commissioning charges- The appellants were issued show-cause notices raising demand of duty in respect of erection and commissioning charges under the category of consulting and engineering services and royalty charges under the category of the same consulting and engineering services. The said show-cause notices were confirmed by the Original Adjudicating Authority. Commissioner (Appeals) remand back the matter to examine the issue in light of the decision referred by the appellant. Held that- the appeal of the revenue disposed of.

  ---

• 2009 (8) TMI 360 - CESTAT, AHMEDABAD
  

  Penalty-reasonable cause- The assessee was engaged in providing services of technical testing and inspection. It had paid service tax with interest. However, the adjudicating authority imposed penalties under section 76 and 77 upon the assessee. On appeal, the Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the action of the adjudicating authority. In the instant appeal, the assessee submitted that during the disputed period section 76 provide for penalty of ₹ 100 per day only but in this case penalty imposed ₹ 200 per day which was introduced subsequently. - under section 77 there was no provision for imposition of penalty for filing the late return which was introduced later.

  The assessee also submitted that the late payment occurred because it wanted to pay service tax out of Cenvat Credit but was not possible, thus the assessee sought lenient view as per section 80. Held that remand back the matter for considering the amendment and lenient view.

  ---

• 2009 (8) TMI 358 - CESTAT, CHENNAI
  

  Cenvat Credit- Cell phone- Assessee availed Cenvat Credit of service tax paid on cell phones provided by it to its employee. In the light of the decision of the Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in CCE v. Excel Crop Care Ltd. 2008 -TMI - 31579 - HIGH COURT GUJARAT, held that Cenvat credit is rightly allowed upheld the Impugned order and reject the appeal of revenue.

  ---

• 2009 (8) TMI 342 - CESTAT, CHENNAI
  

  Service tax on the services received from outside India- whether the recipient of services by a foreign service provider is liable to pay service tax prior to 01.01.2005? In the light of decision of the Larger Bench of the Tribunal in Hindustan Zinc Ltd. v. CCE 2009 -TMI - 33959 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI, Commissioner (Appeals) settled case against the revenue. Held that- the order of Commissioner (Appeals) uphold and reject the claim.

  ---

• 2009 (8) TMI 341 - CESTAT, CHENNAI
  

  Business Auxiliary Services- SIM Card- whether sale price of SIM card is subject to the levy of service tax. Held that- service tax, interest and imposition of penalties are not sustainable, set-aside the impugned order and allow the appeal.

  ---

• 2009 (8) TMI 340 - CESTAT, CHENNAI
  

  Transport of goods- The assessee availed goods transport operator’s service. The demand a service tax has been made by revenue. Commissioner (Appeals) set-aside demand in the light of CCE v. L.H. Sugar Factories Ltd. 2005 -TMI - 158 - Supreme Court. Held that-the order of Commissioner(Appeals) is upheld and reject the appeal.

  ---

• 2009 (8) TMI 337 - CESTAT, MUMBAI
  

  Consulting Engineer- The assessee company was involved in distribution of energy through two schemes, the assessee itself installed the necessary infrastructure for supply of electricity to consumers after collecting the contribution from the latter. For the other scheme known as ‘outright contribution Scheme’ the material and the labour for installation of the necessary infrastructure for supply of electricity were provided by the consumers at their own cost as supervision charges. The original authority demanded service tax from the assessee in respect of the entire amount contributed /spent by the consumers. The Commissioner Appeals) held that service tax was leviable only on the amount collected by the assessee as supervision charges from the consumers of electricity and remanded the matter to the original authority. Held that- the commissioner (Appeals) cannot remand back the matter as amendment brought to section 35A, also held in the case of MIL India Ltd. v. CCE 2007 -TMI - 1196 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA., thus the Tribunal remand back the matter to the commissioner (Appeals) to quantify himself service tax leviable on assessee in respect of supervision charges collected by it from consumers.

  ---

• 2009 (8) TMI 306 - CESTAT, MUMBAI
  

  Violation of Ex-parte order – Natural Justice – The appellant contending that hearing attended by them twice but postponed by adjudicating authority. Notice not received later but order passed ex-parte. In this case Tri.-(Mumbai.) held that no reasonable opportunity has been given in this matter, thus the matter has to be remanded back.

  ---

• 2009 (8) TMI 305 - CESTAT, CHENNAI
  

  Time Bar under section 73 – suppression – Show Cause Notice issued in October, 2005 for periods from 2000-01 to 2003-04, the authority had the knowledge in December, 2001 on non registration and non- payment of service tax by one of the partners of appellant firm. In this case Tri.-(Chennai) held that no suppression arises, thus the demand hit by time-bar. Revision order set aside.

  ---

1234567