|
Advanced Search Options
Service Tax - Case Laws
Showing 81 to 100 of 1283 Records
-
2010 (12) TMI 147
Demand - On the ground that the appellants have not discharged the service tax liability on Commissioning & Installation services and for the appropriation of the amount already paid by them and for also imposition of penalty and demand of interest - Appellants contested the show-cause notice contending that all the contracts in question are turnkey contracts and therefore not liable for service tax prior to 01/06/2007 - It is seen from the records and undisputed that the contracts entered by the appellants with DMRC were registered with the Sales Tax authorities for billing under DVAT Act and VAT liability has been deducted from the payments made to the appellants and discharged to the authorities - After considering the contract entered into between the assessee and its employer, the case of the assessee falls under Section 65(105)(zzzza) Explanation (a) and (e). Even though the assessees case falls under the definition of works contract, but the revenue has no power to call upon the assessee to pay service tax, interest and penalty therein, since the provisions of law has come into force with effect from 1.6.2007 – Appeal was allowed
-
2010 (12) TMI 145
Demand - A new taxable category of service namely Construction Services effective 10.09.2004 was introduced by the Finance Act, 2004 - After issue of show cause notice on 02.06.05 impugned order has been passed confirming the demand of service tax of1,13,60,559/- with interest as applicable further penalty of1,20,00,000/- has been imposed under Section 78 and a penalty of29,200/- has been imposed under Section 76 of the Finance Act, 1994 - As regards service tax liability, the learned advocate submitted that the department is not clear as to the classification of the service rendered by them - The fact that the issue was clarified in 2007 by the Board would support his contention that there was confusion as regards taxability of the service rendered by them during the relevant period covered by the impugned order - In the case of Pepsi Foods Ltd. reported in (2010 - TMI - 78728 - Supreme Court of India) – Accordingly it was held that penalties imposed on the appellant under Section 76 and 78 of Finance Act are set aside while confirming the demand for service tax with interest as not contested – Appeal is disposed of
-
2010 (12) TMI 127
Relief - Based on the Chartered Accountant certificate - Deposited the service tax of Rs. 6,63,048 - directed to Adjudicating Authority should grant reasonable opportunity to the respondent to produce relevant facts and figure so as to make his report on the veracity of Chartered Accountants certificate - Call on 11th April 2011
-
2010 (12) TMI 125
Condonation of delay - Appellants counsel is suffering from jaundice for which he requires 45 days time for hearing - Department has no evidence to show that the service provided by the respondent falls within the meaning of taxable services - Although the matter is fixed for stay hearing - Stay application and appeal are dismissed
-
2010 (12) TMI 122
Waiver or Penalty - Whether the appellant is entitled to any concession on interest and penalty when Modvat credit was allowed against part of the demand resulting in balance demand along with interest and penalty - Consequently, the appellate order in respect of levy of interest is modified holding that interest is to be recovered on unpaid balance of Rs. 27,407 - This clearly demonstrates that small tax payer should not face undue hardship for no deliberate intention of causing loss to Revenue - It would, therefore, be proper to waive the penalties imposed on the appellant - Appeal is disposed of
-
2010 (12) TMI 121
Demand – Show cause notice has been issued on the ground that assessee has godown and they were providing storage and warehousing facility - Assessee had not provided any storage and warehousing services and had given godown on rent to Nestle India Limited – They have submitted the copy of rent agreement - Department itself for the period w.e.f. 1.10.2007 is treating the services provided by the respondent as the services of renting of immovable property not as storage and warehousing services – Appeal is dismissed
-
2010 (12) TMI 119
Interest - The interest levied is only for the confusion of law for which that should be waived - Based on the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Greenply Industries Ltd. vs. CCE, Jaipur, reported in (2010 -TMI - 78698 - CESTAT NEW DELHI) - The time lost to collect revenue is compensated by collection of interest - Therefore, prayer of the learned Counsel for waiver of interest is not entertainable - In this case there is token penalty of Rs. 500/- which has been levied under Section 77 of the Finance Act, 1994 - Consequence of penalty follows to deter recurrence of breach of law - Appeal is dismissed.
-
2010 (12) TMI 118
Demand - Period of limitation - Show Cause Notice was issued on 12.03.07 - Impugned period is from 01.04.05 to 15.09.05 - The respondent assessees have taken service tax registration only on 06.12.05 and the very first return has been filed by them on 04.12.06 - There is an allegation of suppression of value of taxable service in the show cause notice dated 12.03.07 - The demand cannot be held to be time barred - The appeal is allowed by way of remand
-
2010 (12) TMI 115
Appael - Condonnation of delay - There is a delay of 226 days in filing the appeal by the appellant before the Commissioner (A) - Held the learned Commissioner (A) is not empowered to condone - Thus the appeal filed by the appellant do not find any merit and the same is dismissed
-
2010 (12) TMI 114
Waiver of pre-deposit - The learned counsel would submit that the KSRTC had only given its space on the bus stands and buses to M/s. Venpakal Advertisements and others who in turn do the selling and pay Service Tax - Since the issue needs to be considered from the factual matrix, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, we set aside the impugned order; keeping all the issues open, remand the matter back to the adjudicating authority to reconsider all the issues afresh after following the principles of natural justice. Appeal is allowed by way of remand to the Adjudicating Authority - Stay petition is also disposed of
-
2010 (12) TMI 113
Condonation of delay - Appeal - Delay is due to the confusion in the date of receipt of the order, which was caused due to non-communication of the order to the concerned department and is not without any negligence and in terms of principles laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Commissioner, Land Acquisition Vs. MST Katiji as reported on (1987 - TMI - 40082 - SUPREME Court) will cover the issue and hence, prays for condonation of delay - It seems the appellant had not put in place any system that would have enabled him to exercise his legal right appeal under the law - The application for condonation of delay as without merits
-
2010 (12) TMI 111
Impugned order - Pre-deposit - The learned consultant submitted that in this case the service provided by the appellant was only for recruitment of the labour and wages were paid by the service recipient only - The department's contention is that appellant has received or can be said to have received the amount including the labourer wages, in view of the fact that TDS has been detected from the amount payable to the appellant - There are contradictory facts emerging from the bill raised by the appellant, the ledger of the appellant and the ledger of the recipient - In view of the fact that Commissioner has not passed the order on merit, the appeal itself is taken up for disposal with the consent of both the sides and matter remanded to the Commissioner (Appeals) with a direction to decide the issues on merit after giving opportunity to the appellants to present their case
-
2010 (12) TMI 103
Input service - membership of a club - Cenvat Credit - directors have taken the membership of the club to hold the business meetings - Held that: - appellants have failed to produce any evidence in support of their contention that the appellants had hold their business meeting in the club for which the directors of the appellants took membership of the club - Benefit of cenvat credit denied.
-
2010 (12) TMI 102
Cenvat Credit - input services - Held that:- Inspite of the direction in earlier remand order, the lower appellate authority has considered the claim by the appellants with regard to input service credit on GTA service and rest of the claims were not dealt by the lower appellate authority which requires further examination by the lower appellate authority. Accordingly, the matter is again sent back to the lower appellate authority to consider the claim of the appellants with regard to input service credit
-
2010 (12) TMI 101
Software - annual maintenance contract - assessee liable to provide maintenance service on application software system during the tenure of the agreement - Held that: - In the case of SAP India Pvt Ltd. (2010 -TMI - 201706 - CESTAT, BANGALORE) a Division bench of this Tribunal classified similar activity as information technology service under Section 65 (53 (a) of the Finance Act, 1994 and held that the same was exigible to service tax under Section 65 (105) (zzzze) of the Act with effect 16/05/2008. Such service was not taxable prior to the said date. What was considered by the Honrable Supreme Court in Tata Consultancy Service (supra) was computer software, which is essentially different from application software. The software which is inbuilt in a computer, which is otherwise called operating software, is known as computer software in common parlance. The decision in Tata Consultancy Service (2004 -TMI - 4143 - Supreme Court) is applicable to such software. Such software, no doubt, involves intellectual property. Application software also involves this property. However, the legislature in its wisdom has chosen to differentiate application software from operating software (computer software) for the purpose of levy of service tax and, accordingly, the maintenance of application software has been specifically designated as information technology software.
-
2010 (12) TMI 100
Input services - cenvat credit - service tax paid on any service which was not taxable - The appellant had availed CENVAT credit on two input services, viz. (1) inspection and certification of pollution level; (2) operation and maintenance of sewage treatment plant. The authorities held that these services were not taxable services and, therefore, CENVAT credit of the service tax paid thereon was not admissible to the appellant - Held that: - The ratio of the decision in Mahaveer Surfactants (P) Ltd. (2008 -TMI - 32123 - CESTAT CHENNAI), which relates to input-duty credit, is applicable to the present case. It is not in dispute that the services in question were tax-paid and were used as input services by the appellant. The appellant was very much within their right to claim CENVAT credit of such tax. The Revenue has no case that the services in question were not covered by the definition of input service under Rule 2(l) of the CENVAT Credit Rules. In this scenario, credit of the amount of service tax paid on these services by the service provider would be admissible to the appellant under Rule 3(1) of the CENVAT Credit Rules.
-
2010 (12) TMI 99
Cenvat Credit - duty paying document - whether TR-6 challan evidencing payment of service tax on an input service could be accepted as proper document for the purpose of availment of CENVAT credit of such tax by an output service provider or a manufacturer of excisable goods during the period prior to 7.6.2005 - Held that: - On a perusal of the Tribunals orders in the cases of Centaur Pharmaceuticals P. Ltd. (2008 - TMI - 32153 - CESTAT MUMBAI), Essel Pro-Pack Ltd. etc. (2007 - TMI - 2426 - CESTAT, MUMBAI), I find that TR-6 challans evidencing payment of service tax were held to be proper documents for manufacturers of excisable goods or providers of output services to avail CENVAT credit on the input services even for periods prior to 7.6.2005
-
2010 (12) TMI 90
Cenvat Credit - Input Services - service tax paid on certification of pollution level - Held that: - where service tax or Central Excise duty was paid on any service or any excisable goods, as the case may be, by the service provider or the manufacturer of the goods, as the case may be, CENVAT credit thereof would be admissible to the service recipient or, as the case may be, the manufacturer of the final product who has used the aforesaid goods as inputs in the manufacture of final products. The departmental authorities having jurisdiction over the service recipient / manufacturer of final products cannot sit in judgement over the taxability of the service or excisability of the inputs, which function belongs to the departmental authorities having jurisdiction over the service provider/input manufacturer. This settled position of law is squarely applicable to the present case. - Cenvat Credit allowed
-
2010 (12) TMI 89
Investigation - classification - Held that: - The appellants were clearly providing insurance auxiliary services to their clients who are insurance companies. The same cannot be categorized as security services by any stretch of imagination. The lower appellate authority brands the services provided by the appellants as security service because of a single word investigation appearing in the contract. He has failed to appreciate that investigation has various shades of meaning and investigation in the context of insurance claims cannot make the service provided by the appellants into security services
-
2010 (12) TMI 84
Cenvat Credit - outdoor catering service - The outdoor caterers recovered service tax from the respondent and the latter took CENVAT credit thereof. The show-cause notice in this case merely proposed to deny the credit to the party on the ground that the above service did not qualify to be input service under Rule 2 (l) of the CENVAT credit Rules, 2004 - Held that: - it was never the case of the Revenue that the food supplied by outdoor caterers to the respondent’s canteen was not supplied free to their workers. The show-cause notice did not allege that the goods was supplied to their workers at subsidized price or that the entire cost of the goods was recovered from the workers. - This question stands settled in favour of the assessee in the case of Ultratech Cement Ltd. (2010 -TMI - 78203 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT) - credit allowed
........
|
