Home Case Index All Cases Service Tax 2010 2010 2010 (7) Service Tax - 2010 (7) 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 21 to 40 of 123 Records

• 2010 (7) TMI 613 - CESTAT, AHMEDABAD
  

  Refund claim - ‘Stock broker services’ - Appellants have refunded brokerage with service tax but filed the refund claim beyond one year - The refund is made on the basis of reaching a specific amount of turnover over a period whereas the refund claim is for the period in which service tax was paid - Appellants failed to utilize the provisions of the law which provide for provisional assessment where the service tax cannot be determined correctly - Once the appellants were liable to refund the amount received on the basis of turnover, it was quite clear that the service tax could be determined correctly only when the period is over and the turnover is known - The relevant date is defined under Section 11B of Central Excise Act made applicable to service tax matters vide Section 83 of Central Excise Act, 1944 and while rejecting the refund claim the provisions of Section 11B have been correctly taken into account - In respect of one month the refund claim could be in time but appellants failed to provide the details separately month-wise - Hence,do not find any merit in the appeal and accordingly reject the same.

  ---

• 2010 (7) TMI 604 - CESTAT, CHENNAI
  

  Penalty - Suppression of facts - Non-inclusion of electricity charges collected by the assessee’s customers and non-inclusion of the cost of cooking gas and firewood supplied to customers should be treated as suppression of facts with the intention to evade payment of service tax - However, mere non-inclusion is not sufficient to hold that the assessees had suppressed such non-inclusion - Revenue is required to shown that the assessees had knowledge that they were required to include the above elements and still did not do so - Held that: section 78 penalty is not attracted and accordingly set aside the same and allow the appeal in favour of assessee.

  ---

• 2010 (7) TMI 598 - CESTAT, MUMBAI
  

  Waiver of pre-deposit - Demand of service tax along with interest and penalty - The maintenance and repair of software undertaken by applicant was not covered under the definition of ‘maintenance or repair service’ under Section 65(64)- The period involved in this case is 9-7-2004 to 30-4-2006 and at that time the applicant was aware of the Board’s circular dated 17-12-2003 which was not withdrawn till 9-5-2007 and in the definition of maintenance service, clause (b) ‘maintenance or repair of properties whether immovable or not’ was substituted only with effect from 1-5-2006 - Find that the period involved in the case is 9-7-2004 to 30-4-2006, i.e. prior to the amendment of the definition -

  Held that: software in canned form will be covered as goods - However, the Board’s circular dated 17-12-2003 remained in force till 9-5-2007 - The applicant has been able to make out a prima facie case in their favour - The pre-deposit of duty, interest and penalty is waived and recovery of the same is stayed during the pendency of the appeal - Application allowed.

  ---

• 2010 (7) TMI 597 - CESTAT, BANGALORE
  

  Waiver of pre-deposit - Stay of recovery - Management consultancy - The impugned demand on the appellants is raised under Rule 2(1)(d)(iv) of Services Tax Rules, 1994 as recipient of services from foreign agents - appellants have made a strong prima-facie case on the basis of the circulars issued by the CBEC against the demand and penalty - These services were brought into tax net only in the year 2009, much after the period of dispute - Accordingly decided in the favour of the assessee

  ---

• 2010 (7) TMI 591 - CESTAT, BANGALORE
  

  Refund - claimant was not registered with the department during the period the impugned credit accrued to it - As the claimant was not registered with the department, the impugned refund is not apparently admissible to the respondents - The stay application is rejected

  ---

• 2010 (7) TMI 552 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI
  

  Waiver of pre-deposit - Business auxiliary service - Show cause notice framed charge that the service provided by the appellant is chargeable to tax as commission agent, adjudication ended holding that business auxiliary service was provided - Prima facie the appellant appears to be a small service provider and the classification of the services being in question as well as legal plea that the adjudication has travelled beyond the show cause notice - Hence waive the pre-deposit.

  ---

• 2010 (7) TMI 539 - CESTAT, AHMEDABAD
  

  Waiver of pre-deposit - Security services or House keeping or man power supply services - There is no evidence on record to show that the appellants have provided Security Agency Services to the client - It is cleared from the client that the services provided to them were not security services but the house keeping or man power supply services - Hence, the applicants have been able to make out prima facie case in their favour so as to allow the stay petition unconditionally - Hence, decided in favour of assessee.

  ---

• 2010 (7) TMI 537 - CESTAT, BANGALORE
  

  Waiver of pre-deposit - ‘Commercial Training or Coaching’ services - The appellants undertook coaching of students to take examinations of different universities - It is submitted that the definition of the taxable service as clarified by the CBEC in Circular No. 59/8/2003-ST, dated 20-6-2003 excluded such institutions from the scope of the commercial training and coaching services - the appellants have already deposited an amount of Rs. 5 lakhs, consider this deposit sufficient to hear and dispose the subject appeal - Thus, there shall be waiver of pre-deposit of balance dues and stay of recovery - Decided in favour of assessee.

  ---

• 2010 (7) TMI 525 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
  

  Constitutional validity of section 65(30a)with section 65(105)(zzp) and section 65(105)(zzzh) with section 66 - Issue notice to the Attorney General of India along with Respondent - Until the next date of hearing, no coercive steps shall be taken against the Petitioner for the recovery of service tax in relation to the provision - Hence,assessments may proceed in accordance with law.

  ---

• 2010 (7) TMI 512 - CESTAT, BANGALORE
  

  Classification - Demand - Intellectual Property Services - The appellants have also submitted that since it had deposited the tax found due along with applicable interest before issue of show-cause notice basic to the proceedings, the matter should have been treated as closed in terms of section 73(3) of the Act - there is considerable merit in the claim of the appellants that the tax and interest confirmed against the appellants were not liable to be paid by it - Decided in the favour of the assessee

  ---

• 2010 (7) TMI 511 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
  

  Construction service - service tax on builders - Constitutional validity of section 65(30a)with section 65(105)(zzq) and section 65(105)(zzzh) with section 66 - Notice shall issue to the Attorney General of India and also to Respondent - Until the next date of hearing, no coercive steps shall be taken against the Petitioner for the recovery of service tax in relation to the provision - the assessments may proceed in accordance with law.

  ---

• 2010 (7) TMI 502 - CESTAT, KOLKATA
  

  Demand together with interest and penalty -The Appellants had duly applied for registration soon after the imposition of the tax and they were awaiting the registration before they could made payment of the Service Tax amounts - This is a case in which a lenient view regarding impositionof penalty under section 80 of the Finance Act, 1994 can be taken - Hence, confirming the tax and interest amounts determined by the authorities below, the penalty imposed under section 78 is set aside - Appeal is thus partly allowed.

  ---

• 2010 (7) TMI 486 - CESTAT, AHMEDABAD
  

  Refund - Respondent is engaged in manufacturing and export of goods and filed refund claim of Rs. 3,33,564/- claiming refund service tax paid by them for the period from April 2008 to June 2008 on port services and transport of goods - As regards terminal up handling charges and REPO charges, the very same issue had come before the Tribunal in the case of M/s. Macro Polymers Pvt. Ltd. v. CCE, [2010 -TMI - 78579 - CESTAT, AHMEDABAD] this Tribunal had taken a view that refund of service tax paid on terminal handling charges and REPO charges were admissible under circumstances - in this claim the refund claimed is in respect of transportation from ICD to the port - refund allowed.

  ---

• 2010 (7) TMI 484 - CESTAT, CHENNAI
  

  Cenvat credit - 'Air Ticket Booking Service' - subject to the condition that the journey is undertaken for the business purpose only - appellate authority has relied upon the decision of the Tribunal in the case of CCE, Ahmedabad v. Fine Care Biosystems [2009 -TMI - 35460 - CESTAT, AHMEDABAD] - Held that: - dispute is covered by the Tribunal's judgment cited supra, this is not a fit case for admission - appeal is dismissed

  ---

• 2010 (7) TMI 481 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI
  

  Appellant is only providing service in the hospital - not providing any commercial caterers' service - taxing the appellant shall cause undue hardship and equally calling for pre-deposit before hearing the matter shall cause prejudice to its interest - Held that: - appellant had no voluminous turnover - proper case for dispensing pre-deposit on the ground of unsound financial condition - Application is disposed of

  ---

• 2010 (7) TMI 477 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
  

  Demand of service tax, interest and penalty - assessee availed services of Goods Transporter Operator - assessee was liable to pay Service Tax as recipient of such services - Held that: - till the point of time Section 73 of the Finance Act, 1994 came to be substituted w.e.f. 10-9-2004 provisions of the said section could not be made applicable despite retrospective amendment in Sections 68 and 71A of the Finance Act, 1994. In these circumstances, admittedly, the assessee could not be faulted with for not having filed a return after getting himself registered. More particularly, when one considers the language employed in the Proviso below sub-section (1) of Section 68 and the provisions of Section 71A of the Finance Act, 1994, it is not possible to state that the language of the Statute is so clear that any default can be fastened on the respondent-assessee - Appeal is dismissed

  ---

• 2010 (7) TMI 471 - CESTAT, AHMEDABAD
  

  Tour operators - SCN issued asking them to take registration and pay service tax on the service rendered by them - contention of the appellant is that the Commissioner (Appeals) has relied upon certificate issued by Regional Transport Authority, Rajkot for bringing the vehicles used by the respondent out of the purview of definition of tourist vehicle as defined in the Section 2(43) of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 at the conclusion arrived at by the appellate authority was prima facie wrong and he has overlooked that the lower adjudicating authority has personally examined the vehicles and arrived at conclusion that the vehicle predominantly covered the specification made in Rule 128 of Motor Vehicle Rules, 1988 - Held that: - Learned Commissioner (Appeals) has rightly relied upon the decision of Hon'ble High Court of Madras in the case of Secy. Federn. of Bus-Operators Assn. of T.N. v. UOI & Others reported in (2001 -TMI - 55 - HIGH COURT MADRAS) - The appellant could not produce any evidence to demolish the conclusion arrived at by the learned Commissioner (Appeals) - Commissioner (Appeals)' order is upheld and Revenue's appeal is dismissed

  ---

• 2010 (7) TMI 470 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI
  

  Input service distributor (ISD) - respondent's Head Office in the issued invoice enabling the respondent's manufacturing unit to take cenvat credit - authority held that respondents did not take registration - the respondents were not eligible for the credit - Department's contention is that that existing unit should have registered on or before 16-6-05, when the notification came into effect - Held that: - It does not stand to reason that the existing unit is given only 10 days' time from the date of issue of Notification from 7-6-05 and that they are required to take registration before the date of commencement of the notification which is 16th day of June, 2005 - eligible for the credit taken is legal and proper - Appeal is rejected

  ---

• 2010 (7) TMI 461 - HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY
  

  Construction Service – Amendment vide Finance Act 2010 – Constitutional validity – Section 65(30a) read with Section 65(105)(zzp) and Section 65(105)(zzzh) – stay - no coercive steps shall be taken against the petitioners for the recovery of service tax in relation to the provisions in question, but it is clarified that assessments may proceed in accordance with law.

  ---

• 2010 (7) TMI 451 - CESTAT, MUMBAI
  

  Service tax credit - Commissioner (Appeals) had held that the appellants are entitled to CENVAT credit of service tax paid on inward freight - It is submitted that most of the disputed credit related to freight paid for inward transportation - As regards the credit of service tax paid for outward freight, the dispute was covered in their favour by the decision of the Larger Bench of the Tribunal in the case of ABB Ltd. - Thus the appellants are not entitled to credit of service tax paid on outward freight disagreeing with the ratio of the decision of the Larger Bench of the Tribunal in the case of ABB Ltd.- complete waiver of the dues adjudged against the appellants and stay recovery thereof pending decision in the appeals ordered.

  ---

123456........ 7