Home Case Index All Cases Service Tax 2009 2009 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 1500 Records

• 2009 (12) TMI 407 - CESTAT, BANGALORE
  

  Stay- Cenvat Credit- The allegation of the revenue in the show cause notice is that the applicant is not maintaining separate records for the input services commonly used in the taxable services as well as in the sale of gas turbines and hence they are required to utilize only 20% of the service tax payable from the cenvat credit and having not done so, and having utilized cenvat credit in excess of 20% violated/contravened the provisions of Rule 6(3)(c) of the Cenvat Credit Rules 2004. Question whether sale of parts covered under services or category of sale. Held that- trading in sale of parts undertaken. Cenvat Credit amount utilized during impugned period, reserved. Pre-deposit of balance amount waived.

  ---

• 2009 (12) TMI 406 - CESTAT, BANGALORE
  

  Stay- The issue involved in this case is regarding the service tax liability on the appellant as regards the services rendered by them to the Govt. of Andhra Pradesh in form of turn key projects executed by them for the construction of reservoirs, canals, distributor system to feed various ayacut, land etc. The Revenue proceeded against the appellant on the ground that such an activity would fall under the category of works contract and will be covered under the definition of 'works contract' more specifically under sub-clause (e) "turnkey projects including engineering, procurement and construction or commissioning (EPC) projects". Held that- C.B.E.& C. Circular No. 116/10/2009-S.T., dated 15.09.2009 excluding such welfare activities. Prima facie case made out. Pre-deposit waived.

  ---

• 2009 (12) TMI 403 - CESTAT, KOLKATA
  

  Maintainability- present appeal against order dismissing appeal as not maintainable against such letter from department. Held that- impugned order holding appeal as not maintainable against letter, sustainable.

  ---

• 2009 (12) TMI 402 - CESTAT, CHENNAI
  

  Penalty- The assessees had rendered “Technical Testing and Analysis Services” and had not discharged service tax liability during the period July, 2003 to June, 2006 although the levy came into force with effect from 1-7-2003. As the assessee was not aware. Held that- it is a fit case for the waiver of the penalty.

  ---

• 2009 (12) TMI 401 - CESTAT, CHENNAI
  

  Demand- Limitation- Show Cause Notice not alleging suppression to invoke extended period. Held that- no finding in impugned orders on plea of absence of suppression. Charges necessary for invocation of extended period of limitation not contained in show cause notice. Demand time barred. Impugned order set aside.

  ---

• 2009 (12) TMI 400 - CESTAT, MUMBAI
  

  Refund- whether the warehouse complexes constructed by the appellants on Railway side against the award of contract by the Central Warehousing Corporation, an undertaking of Government of India, the appellants are covered in the category of Commercial and Industrial Construction Services or not. Held that- Commercial construction done on behalf of government and premises let out earning revenue. Impugned activity covered under commercial or industrial construction service. Appeal rejected.

  ---

• 2009 (12) TMI 381 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI
  

  Stay- Cenvat Credit- The appellants are engaged in the manufacture of filament yarn. During the period from October, 2006 to September, 2007, the appellants availed GTA services in respect of transport of inputs to their factory and for payment of service tax as recipient of GTA services, they utilized the Cenvat credit to the extent of Rs. 6,53,601/-. Revenue’s case that since GTA service received by appellant, manufacturer is not their output service, tax liability on impugned service not to be discharged through cenvat credit. Held that- issue stands referred to Larger Bench but not a case for total waiver of pre-deposit. Appellant directed to pay Rs. 4 lakh as pre-deposit. Pre-deposit of balance amount waived recovery stayed.

  ---

• 2009 (12) TMI 378 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI
  

  Dispute involving PSU- Appeal involving state Public Sector Undertaking. Tribunal in KARNATAKA LAND ARMY CORPN. LTD. Versus COMMR. OF S.T., BANGALORE 2009 -TMI - 34827 - CESTAT, BANGALORE, relying on High Court ruling, held that clearance from committee on disputes not required in respect of PSU. Mere rejection of SLP by Supreme Court against said High Court ruling not amounts to confirmation of views of High Court. Supreme court in several cases noted requirement of committee to sort dispute with PSUs. Held that- Tribunal decision and High Court ruling not in consonance with law laid down by Supreme Court. Clearance from COD required in present case.

  ---

• 2009 (12) TMI 377 - CESTAT, MUMBAI
  

  Penalty- Delay in payment of service tax- the appellant had provided their premises on rent to M/s. Oriental Bank of Commerce. A show-cause notice was issued, wherein it was charged that she had delayed payment of Service tax for the period from June, 07 to March, 08 and on which they failed to pay interest of Rs. 74,912/- and rendered herself liable for penalty amounting to Rs. 2,48,403/- under Section 76 of the Finance Act. The interest and penalty were confirmed by both the lower authorities. Appellant contending that Service Tax reimbursed by tenant only on 4.1.2008 and on receipt, the same was paid. Held that- levy being new, appellant had bonafide belief in not depositing Service tax in time. No allegation that service tax collected but not paid. Penalty set aside.

  ---

• 2009 (12) TMI 366 - CESTAT, CHENNAI
  

  Stay-Pre-dispensation- The reason for disallowing the credit is non-payment of service tax by the input service providers upon whom the liability is cast in law for payment of service tax. Held that-non payment of amount to revenue prima facie not a ground to deny credit when tax paid to service provider. Pre-deposit waived.

  ---

• 2009 (12) TMI 361 - CESTAT, CHENNAI
  

  Commercial training or coaching centers – Notification No. 10/03- ST., dated 20-6-03 – Rectification of mistake (ROM) application – appellant contended that the Tribunal ought to have followed the decision of the Hon’ble Kerala High Court in Malappurarn Distt. Parallel College Association v. Union of India [2010 TMI - 77410 - High Court of Kerala] wherein the Hon’ble High Court had observed that charging service tax for service rendered by parallel colleges (commercial training or coaching centres) and simultaneously allowing exemption to regular colleges for the same service was discriminatory and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution. – Held that: - court itself has clarified that this judgment was rendered in the peculiar facts applicable to parallel colleges in Kerala and advised that the same was not to be treated as declaring the Section unconstitutional, in so far as any other category of educational institution or training centre was concerned - What the applicants are seeking now is a different interpretation of the High Court’s judgment and the notification which does not fall within the scope of ROM application. – ROM application rejected

  ---

• 2009 (12) TMI 332 - CESTAT, CHENNAI
  

  Notification No. 8/2005-S.T., dated 1-3-2005- Business Auxiliary Service- whether the assessees are required to pay Service tax under the Heading ‘Business Auxiliary Service’ (BSA) during the period 10-9-2004 to 28-2-2005, and whether the benefit of exemption in terms of Notification No. 8/2005-S.T., dated 1-3-2005 in respect of the job work done for their clients during period March and April, 2005 and March and April, 2007 is available. Held that- the conditions of notification not fulfilled by the assessee thus direct him to deposit a sum of Rs. 2,50,000/-.

  ---

• 2009 (12) TMI 329 - CESTAT, BANGALORE
  

  Refund- the issue involved in this case is regarding the deduction of the amount of interest payable on the Service tax arrears from the amount of refund due on the pre-deposit paid by the appellant. Appellants preferred an appeal before the learned Commissioner (Appeals). Held that- Service tax amount payable, provisions of Section 87 were on statute. If that be so, invoking provision of Section 11 for recovering the interest amount due on the Service tax liability seems to be inappropriate and beyond the provisions of law. Provisions of Section 11 of Central Excise Act, 1944, will be applicable, only, if dues arise out of proceedings under the Central Excise Act, 1944. Accordingly, in view of these findings, set aside the impugned order and allow the appeal.

  ---

• 2009 (12) TMI 328 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI
  

  Marine Inland Transit Insurance services- The Assistant Commissioner disallowed the Cenvat credit of Rs. 38,510/- in respect of the services of “Marine Inland Transit Insurance” in connection with the procurement of plant and machinery of the captive power project, “money insurance for money in transit from the factory to bank to & fro”, “insurance for personnel working in the appellant’s factory in the case of accident or loss”; “the follow-up services in connection with installation of plant and machinery of captive power plant” and, telephone services in respect of telephones installed at the residence of General Manager and Company’s guest house. Held that- the denial of Cenvat credit taken in respect of telephone services, in respect of telephone installed at the residence of the General Manager and at the Appellant’s guest house, the rest of the order upholding the cenvat credit demand by denying Cenvat credit in respect of marine inland transit insurance, money insurance for money in transit from bank to factory to & fro, follow up services in connection with installation of plant & machinery of captive power plant and insurance of personnel working in the factory for accident or loss and upholding the penalty on the Appellant, is set aside.

  ---

• 2009 (12) TMI 327 - CESTAT, AHMEDABAD
  

  Penalty- . Service tax demand has been confirmed on the value of service towards TDS for income tax purpose, contributions to PF and ESI. In this case issue of penalty involve. Held that- the amount relating to TDS, PF & ESI was actually not received by the appellant but deposited with the concerned department. Thus, it can not be said that appellant made a mistake in not including the same for the purpose of payment of service tax. Thus it is a fit case for waiver of penalty under Section 80 of Finance Act, 1994.

  ---

• 2009 (12) TMI 326 - CESTAT, AHMEDABAD
  

  Courier service-Penalties- The appellant is engaged in providing courier service and the service tax demand for the period from 1998-1999 to 2001-2002 has been confirmed against the appellant with interest as applicable and penalties. Held that- the appellant is a small entrepreneur, engaged in the business of courier service. The appellant has already deposited the tax with interest before issue of adjudication order. It is seen that there was confusion regarding the levy of tax. Hence, the penalties imposed on the appellant are not warranted. Thus, the appeal is allowed by setting aside the penalties

  ---

• 2009 (12) TMI 318 - CESTAT, BANGALORE
  

  Stay – waiver of pre deposit - appellant has rendered services of “piling work” to various building contractors – Held that: - the appellant’s claim regarding benefit of abatement of 67% of the goods which had been used, needs to be extended to them. The items used for piling work for construction of buildings which have been charged to service tax, needs to be gone into detail at the time of final disposal. - appellant has already deposited an amount of Rs. 75.44 lakhs as against the confirmed demand which is enough deposit for the disposal of the appeal – stay granted for remaining amount.

  ---

• 2009 (12) TMI 315 - CESTAT, BANGALORE
  

  Penalty- that the appellant herein is engaged in the activity of providing services of mechanized processing of cheques, drafts, pay orders, at-part instruments etc., to their various customers like banks, financial institution etc. at various places in the country using MICR technology. It was concluded that the said services fall under the scope of Banking and other Financial Services and attracted levy of service tax. The appellants have already discharged service tax liability before the issuance of show cause notice along with interest. The Commissioner (Appeals) setting aside the penalty. Held that- in the light of the decisions of Punjab National Bank v. CCE, Chandigarh - 2009 -TMI - 33567 - CESTAT NEW DELHI, set aside the penalties imposed on the appellant under Section 76 & 78 by the impugned order.

  ---

• 2009 (12) TMI 314 - CESTAT, BANGALORE
  

  Limitation- the appellant had been registered with the department as a provider of or ‘cargo handling services with effect from 16-8-2002. The appellants had wrongly described the service rendered by them as ‘stevedoring’ in their application instead of ‘port services or ‘cargo handling service’. Thus SCN issued for demanding service tax and penalty. Held that- it cannot hold that the department was not aware of the nature of activity undertaken by the appellants when it was issued a registration certificate in August, 2002. There fore, as rightly argued by the “ appellants, the show cause notice basic to the proceedings issued in July, 2006 is barred by limitation. The demand of service tax is not sustainable, the demand for interest and penalties imposed are also not sustainable. Accordingly, the impugned order set aside and the appeal is allowed.

  ---

• 2009 (12) TMI 313 - CESTAT, BANGALORE
  

  Advertising Agency Service- The issue involved in this case is whether the appellant herein would fall under the category of advertising agency. Held that- evidence in the form of purchase bills, sales invoice and purchase orders placed. Evidence not produced before adjudicating authority. Issue requires reconsideration. Opinion on merits not expressed. Matter remanded to adjudicating authority to reconsider the issue.

  ---

1234567........ 75