Home Case Index All Cases Service Tax 2011 2011 2011 (1) Service Tax - 2011 (1) 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 122 Records

• 2011 (1) TMI 829 - CESTAT, CHENNAI
  

  Waiver of pre-deposit - GTA services - applicants have made out a strong prima facie case for total waiver in the light of their submission prima facie that they were not service receivers since the consignment notes have been drawn against the consignee (consignment agent), that the GTA alone has provided service to the consignment agents and prima facie the consignment agents are liable to pay service tax - Decided in favor of the assessee

  ---

• 2011 (1) TMI 815 - CESTAT BANGALORE
  

  Exemption under Notification No.12/2003 - the assessee has been alleged to have not paid the Service Tax liability on the services under the #Maintenance or Repair services - The benefit of Notification No.12/2003 was also not extended to the assessee - If the assessee is claiming the benefit of Notification No.12/2003, if eligible, has to be extended to him and it cannot be denied if he produces the certificates - As per the decision taken by this bench in the cases of M/s. Sanmati Electro-Sinterings Vs. CCE, Belgaum (2010 -TMI - 205868 - CESTAT, BANGALORE), set aside the impugned order, without expressing any opinion on merits of the cases, keeping all the issues open, remand the matter back to the Adjudicating Authority to reconsider the issue afresh.

  ---

• 2011 (1) TMI 811 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI
  

  Mobile tele communication service - Cenvat credit of input services - service of insurance for the valuables and the transit of cash from the collection centres to the bank - any prudent businessman will arrange the insurance for the same and hence this service has to be treated as activity relating to business and earlier the Tribunal in the case of Monnet Ispat & Energy Ltd. v. CCE, Raipur (2009 -TMI - 77270 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI) and CCE, Raipur v. Raipur Rotocast Ltd. (2009 -TMI - 75941 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI) has also taken the same view holding that the service of insurance of machinery, capital goods and cash in transit is covered by the definition of input service - Decided in favour of assessee.

  As regards the service of customer care and attending to customers’ complaints - this service is squarely covered the term activities related to business.-Decided in favour of assessee.

  As regards employee welfare expenses - this credit has been taken on the basis of the invoice of M/s Chitra Pal Audio Private Ltd. and the invoice indicates supply of audio visual equipment. Invoice dees not indicate whether the invoice is for service or is for sale of the goods - Decided against the assessee.

  As regards, the service of outdoor catering - Bombay High Court in the case of The CCE, Nagpur v. Ultratech Cement Ltd. and Ors. (2010 -TMI - 78203 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT) has held that the service of outdoor caterer is integrally connected with the business of the manufacturing of final product, on going through the invoices of the service provider it is seen that the invoices do not even indicate the payment of any service tax and the invoices appear to be just for supply of food and drinks - Decided in favour of assessee.

  ---

• 2011 (1) TMI 810 - CESTAT, CHENNAI
  

  Export of goods - Refund of service tax paid on input services - Notification No.41/2007-ST, dated 06.10.2007 - The original authority has also found on verification of the invoices from the service provider that there is a general co-relation between the export goods and the invoices from the Technical Testing & Invoices Service - It is not denied that the exports to Sweden should meet the standards and specifications provided by IKEA so that the export goods are accepted – by the buyer in Sweden - It is the policy of the Government to encourage exports and not to burden the export consignments with domestic taxes like the service tax, which is paid in relation to the input service - refund allowed.

  ---

• 2011 (1) TMI 809 - CESTAT, BANGALORE
  

  Power of remand - Commissioner(Appeals) has remanded the matter back to the Adjudicating Authority for re-processing of refund claim based upon the finding recorded in para -6 of his order - As per the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Mil India Ltd. Vs. CCE, Noida [2007 -TMI - 1196 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA], held that Commissioner(Appeals) does not have power to remand the matter back to the Adjudicating Authority - Therefore, the impugned order is set aside and the matter is remanded back to the ld. Commissioner(Appeals) to consider the issue afresh at his level only after following the principles of natural justice - Appeal is thus allowed by way of remand.

  ---

• 2011 (1) TMI 799 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI
  

  Fixing of RMC -the order of adjudication exhibit that besides supplying Ready Mix Concrete (RMC) the appellant was engaged in the preparation of ready mix concrete and also providing services such as transporting, pumping, laying, placing and fixing of RMC at the construction site. Prima facie, the sum and substance of the order of adjudication throws light on the primary activity of supply of ready mix concrete without satisfying elements of Industrial and commercial construction services which can be thoroughly examined in the course of regular hearing for which we dispense with requirement of pre-deposit during pendancy of appeal

  ---

• 2011 (1) TMI 790 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
  

  Service tax liability - Recipient of service - the Bombay High Court in the case of Indian National Ship Owners Association v. Union of India [2008 (12) TMI 41 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT] held that the liability to pay service tax by the recipient of service is only from 18-4-2006, which judgment has been affirmed by the Apex Court - Decided in favour of assessee.

  ---

• 2011 (1) TMI 754 - CESTAT, MUMBAI
  

  Waiver of pre-deposit - Maintenance or Repair services - The arguments made before us revolve around the term “management” appearing in the definition “maintenance or repair” under Sec. 65(64) of the Act. The Commissioner has brought operation of power plant within the scope of “management of immovable property” - In the case of Operations & Maintenance Co. P. Ltd. v. CCE, Pondicherry [2007 (7) S.T.R. 369 (Tri.-Chennai)] - Held that: wherein the “pith and substance rule” was invoked to hold that the main function of the assessee was to operate the power plant and that maintenance/repair was only incidental thereto and further that such maintenance and repair of the power plant was not a service rendered to another person - Decided in favor of the assessee

  ---

• 2011 (1) TMI 753 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI
  

  Demand - GTA services - Notification No. 32/04-ST dated 3.12.2004 - Circular No. B-1/6/05-TRU dated 27.7.05 - The fact of non-availment of cenvat credit etc. can be proved by any manner - in the case of Commissioner of Central Excise Vapi Vs Unimark Remedies Ltd reported in - (2008 -TMI - 34416 - CESTAT, AHMEDABAD), it has been that the Notification does not require consignment -wise declaration on consignment notes - As the issue is covered in favour of the respondents by above referred decisions of the Tribunal, we find no infirmity in the view adopted by the Commissioner (Appeals) - Appeal is rejected

  ---

• 2011 (1) TMI 752 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI
  

  Refund of service tax - export of goods - Notification No.41/07-ST dated 6.10.2007 - the dispute relates to the factual position. Though the order of the Assistant Commissioner reflects upon the fact of production of agreement before him but the terms and conditions of the agreement do not stand spell out by him in detail. In such a scenario, we would require the original adjudicating authority to examine the terms of the agreement and decide the issue afresh. We accordingly set aside the impugned order and remand the matter to the original authority for de-novo adjudication in respect of the disputed part of the refund. The appeal is remanded in the above terms. The stay petition also gets disposed of.

  ---

• 2011 (1) TMI 748 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
  

  The question arises for consideration is the leviability of the service tax from a particular date, which falls within the phrase determination of right of tax - If that is so against such an order, the appeal lies under Section 35(L) of the Central Excise Act before the apex court, which is made applicable to the provisions of Service Tax - Appeal is rejected

  ---

• 2011 (1) TMI 747 - CESTAT, DELHI
  

  Power of remand - Revenue pleaded that during the period of dispute, the Commissioner (Appeals) had no power of remand, that the provisions of Section 85 of the Finance Act, 1994 are in pari materia with the provisions of Section 35 A of the Central Excise Act, 1944 and that with regard to Section 35 A of the Central Excise Act, 1944, Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of MIL India Ltd.[2007 -TMI - 1196 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA], held that the Commissioner (Appeals) has no power of remand, that the order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of MIL India Ltd. (supra) is applicable to the service tax appeals also and in view of this, Commissioner (Appeals)'s orders remanding the matter to the original adjudicating authority are not correct - The impugned orders are, therefore, set aside and the matters are remanded to the Commissioner (Appeals).

  ---

• 2011 (1) TMI 743 - CESTAT, BANGALORE
  

  Waiver of pre-deposit - Short paid of service tax - Payments were made good by assessee by availment of Cenvat Credit on the input services - Eligibility to Cenvat Credit on the service tax paid on the input services is based on the invoices, which were not produced before lower authorities - Since the eligibility to the Cenvat Credit needs to be verified from the factual matrix, we are of the considered view that the Adjudicating Authority should go into the matter and re-consider the issue afresh - Appeal is allowed by way of remand.

  ---

• 2011 (1) TMI 736 - CESTAT, MUMBAI
  

  Demand - Maintenance and Repair Service - Suppression of facts - department issued two show-cause notices for two different periods, demanding service tax along with interest and invoking penal provisions - CBEC Circular No. 137/167/2006-CX-4 dated 3-10-2007 - The appellant is not a new assessee and were holding service tax registration w.e.f. 12/01/2004 - In case of Union of India v. Rajasthan Spinning & Weaving Mills - (2009 -TMI - 33419 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA), the Supreme Court has held that mandatory penalty under Section 11AC is imposable if conditions for penal liability spelt out in Section 11AC are fulfilled and payment of duty before issue of show-cause notice does not alter the liability for penalty - Appeal is disposed of

  ---

• 2011 (1) TMI 735 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI
  

  Demand - Intellectual property service - the nature of the services has not changed and the said fact is in the knowledge of the Revenue when the earlier show cause notice was issued on 11-4-05, we, at this prima facie stage, are of the view that the demand is barred by limitation having been raised by invoking the extended period - Decided in favor of the assessee

  ---

• 2011 (1) TMI 734 - CESTAT, BANGALORE
  

  Waiver of pre-deposit - Service tax liability on the amount of discount/ trade discounts/ commission given by the appellant to PCO Operators - Since, there is no dispute as to the fact that the appellant has discharged the service tax on the amount collected from the PCO operators - This fact needs to be taken into consideration for the valuation of taxable services - Also find that Board's circular No.23/3/97-ST dt. 13/10/1997 and the decision of the co-ordinate Bench in the case of Bharti Infotel Ltd. Vs. CCE, Bhopal [2005 -TMI - 264 - CESTAT, New Delhi] , prima-facie cover the issue in favour of the assessee - Prima-facie for the waiver of pre-deposit of the amounts - Decided in favour of assessee.

  ---

• 2011 (1) TMI 729 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI
  

  Waiver of pre-deposit - Franchise services - Warranty fee - Since, considered the agreement between the applicant and the dealers in connection with MTV outlets - 'Prima facie, the applicant has granted the licence to use its proprietary system and collecting the management fee from the dealers fixed at 25% of the profit earned in resale of pre-owned cars - Prima facie, the applicants are rendering the franchise services - However, prima face, the value of warranty fee may not be part of service charges in connection with franchise services - Decided against the assessee.

  ---

• 2011 (1) TMI 728 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI
  

  Application for stay - authorised service station - Demand - Held that: the sale of parts and components during rendering services during warranty period cannot be treated as part of the services - Merely because these items were used in undertaking the repairs /maintenance, the same may not become part of the services undertaken - Therefore, the demand of about Rs.1.88 crores is not, prima facie, sustainable

  Regarding the demand of service tax on the incentives - To treat the value as representing the value of business auxiliary services, is prima facie not correct. And therefore, the demand of about Rs.75.23 is also not, prima facie, sustainable - The claim of the learned advocate that the demand is barred by limitation also requires to be gone into at the time of final hearing - Decided against the assessee by way of direction to deposit Rs. 40,00,000

  ---

• 2011 (1) TMI 727 - CESTAT, BANGALORE
  

  Waiver of the pre-deposit - maintenance or repair service - In this case the appellant is using the said SAP system and the same is maintained by their parent company situated abroad. In our considered view, the appellant has made out a prima facie case for the waiver of the pre-deposit of the amounts involved - Decided in favour of the assessee

  ---

• 2011 (1) TMI 722 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
  

  Cenvat credit - outdoor catering services - the appeal relates to the determination of the rate of tax payable for the services rendered - All those matters fall within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Apex Court under Section 35-L of the Act - Appeal is rejected

  ---

123456........ 7