|
Advanced Search Options
Service Tax - Case Laws
Showing 21 to 40 of 1337 Records
-
2011 (12) TMI 205 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI
Cargo handling services - section 65(105)(zr) of Finance Act,1994 – assessee engaged in hiring out payloaders to SECL and for loading of coal into the wagons at railway siding – argument of the Appellants that they were in the business of just hiring out pay loaders - Held that:- Work order clearly shows that assessee’s work was to load coal into the railway wagons. The compensation given to them was also based on per ton of coal loaded and not based on number of pay loaders given. At the stage of loading of cargo into railway wagons there can be no doubt that the goods are cargo. Thus not able to agree with the contention that if any mechanized means is employed there is no handling of cargo. Therefore, the work done by the appellant was cargo handling. See Gajanand Agarwal v. CCE&C [2008 (6) TMI 163 - CESTAT KOLKATA]
Suppression with intention to evade payment of tax cannot be alleged in this case in view of the confusion in law in this matter prevalent during the time and therefore demand for the normal period of one year only can be sustained in this case and penalties u/s 80 of Finance Act, 1994 are waived. See Vishal Traders v. CCE [2009 (11) TMI 137 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI]
Further, in this type case of cases where the service provider has not been able to realise service tax separately from the person availing service, the Tribunal has been holding that the value realised should be considered as cum-tax value. See CCE&C v. Advantage Media Consultant [2008 (3) TMI 59 - CESTAT KOLKATA] upheld by Apex Court [2008 (10) TMI 570 - SUPREME COURT] – Decided partly in favor of assessee.
-
2011 (12) TMI 201 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Constitutional validity of levy of service tax on import of services - Does the Parliament have the powers to legislate "for" any territory, other than the territory of India or any part of it? - Section 66A of Chapter-V of Finance Act, 1994 and Taxation of Services (Provided from Outside India and Received in India) Rules, 2006 – Instructions F. No.275/7/2010-CX.8A dated 30.6.2010 as ultra vires to the Finance Act, 1994 – 100% EOU - Held that:- Section 66A - Charge of Service Tax on Services received from outside India - as inserted by Finance Act, 2006 vide notification dated 18.4.2006 w.e.f. 1.5.2006 and Taxation of Services (Provided from Outside India) Rules, 2006 made in exercise of powers conferred by Sections 93 and 94 read with Section 66A of the Finance Act, 1994 notified on 19.4.2006 and amended by notification dated 27.2.2010, does not suffer from vice of unconstitutionality, either on the ground of lack of legislative competence, or on the ground of extra territorial operation of laws. So far as the levy of the Service Tax on the services alleged to be received by the petitioner from Software Services LC (SSLC) having its office in USA under the 'Master Services Agreement', and for which the letter dated 18.6.2010 has been sent to the petitioner on the basis of an audit report of the audit inspection, since there has been no adjudication under the Act, we direct that the competent authority under the Finance Act, 1994 to decide the matter in accordance with the law laid down.
-
2011 (12) TMI 200 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
Applicability of CAG (Duties, Powers and Conditions of Service) Act, 1971 for conduct of audit of private company - prayer for interim order - petitioner submitted that under the 1971 Act, audit regarding the accounts of the State and Central authorities or the State companies can be conducted – Held that:- Since the issue relates to the applicability of the 1971 Act and as I find from the letter dated 8th December, 2011 that audit commencing on 12th December, 2011 has been withheld, let there be an interim order directing that no audit be conducted by the authorities till 16th March, 2012 or until further orders, whichever is earlier.
-
2011 (12) TMI 165 - PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT
Liability of Sub-Contractor to pay service tax when it stands paid by the main Contractor on the total amount inclusive of the service part, which was allotted to the assessee by the main Contractors - proof of deposit furnished - request for adjournment on medical ground rejected as the medical certificate has not been attached – plea for waiver of deposit also rejected – Held that:- Revenue was not able to dispute the argument that amount of service tax is payable in respect of the services rendered either by the contractor or by the sub contractor and that the amount of service tax in respect of the same services cannot be charged twice. Further, petitioner has produced the challans in respect of deposit of service tax by the main contractors. In view of this, the direction of the Tribunal to deposit 50% of the amount of the demand raised, is unjustified and untenable. Consequently, the order is set aside and Tribunal is directed to decide the appeal without any predeposit. Further, while seeking adjournment on the medical ground, the medical certificates are not expected to be produced. Statement made by the assessee is expected to be accepted. Thus, there was no reason to decline the request for adjournment.
-
2011 (12) TMI 141 - CESTAT, BANGALORE
Section 66A of the Finance Act, 1994 - liability for period prior to 18.04.06 - Held that:- The order of the Commissioner revising the order of the original authority to demand service tax for the period prior to 17.04.2006 on the recipient of the services in India in the facts and circumstances are not justified in view of the judgment of the High Court in the case of Indian National Shipowners Association Vs. Union of India (2008 - TMI - 32013 - High Court Of Bombay) as conveyed by the Board to the field formations vide Circular dated 26.09.2011 - Decided in favor of assessee.
-
2011 (12) TMI 138 - CESTAT, BANGALORE
Power of the Commissioner (Appeals) to remand - export of IT software - refund claim under Rule 5 of CENVAT Credit Rules 2004 read with Notification No. 5/2006 dated 14.3.2006 on input services used in the export of output services – Held that:- The Commissioner (Appeals) has examined and found nexus between the input services (viz manpower recruitment, commercial training, management consultancy etc) and the output services. In effect, the Commissioner (Appeals) has not remitted any issue on merits to be decided by the original authority. It is basically for quantification purposes based on the Chartered Accountant's certificate as envisaged in the Board's Circular dated 19.1.2010. - Decided against the Revenue.
-
2011 (12) TMI 136 - CESTAT, AHMEDABAD
CENVAT Credit of Service Tax on rent-a-cab service - rent-a-cab service was not exclusively used in relation to manufacture – period involved April 2005 to October 2009 - Held that:- The issue is only of interpretation of law. However, the relevant decisions regarding limitation as well as admissibility of credit or otherwise, were not cited before lower authority and therefore, the matter is remanded to original adjudicating authority, who shall consider the issue afresh in the light of the decisions of the Supreme Court/High Court/Tribunal and also the provisions of law.
-
2011 (12) TMI 132 - CESTAT, BANGALORE
Power of the Commissioner (Appeals) to remand - export of IT software - refund claim under Rule 5 of CENVAT Credit Rules 2004 read with Notification No. 5/2006 dated 14.3.2006 on input services used in the export of output services – Held that:- The Commissioner (Appeals) has examined and found nexus between the input services( viz telcom service, security agency, chartered accountant service etc) and the output services. In effect, the Commissioner (Appeals) has not remitted any issue on merits to be decided by the original authority. It is basically for quantification purposes based on the Chartered Accountant's certificate as envisaged in the Board's Circular dated 19.1.2010. - Decided against the Revenue.
-
2011 (12) TMI 131 - CESTAT, BANGALORE
Refund of service tax to include education cess - Held that:- Board's Circular No. 134/3/2011-ST dated 8.4.2011 clarifies since Education Cess is levied and collected as percentage of service tax, when and wherever service tax is NIL by virtue of exemption, Education Cess would also be NIL. In view of the above, Order-in-Revision passed by the Commissioner to recover education cess from the refund granted on the ground that the exemption was only in respect of service tax and does not cover the education cess cannot be sustained.- Decided in favor of assessee.
-
2011 (12) TMI 121 - CESTAT, AHMEDABAD
Plea for condonation of delay – rejection of appeal by Commissioner (Appeals) on the ground of limitation - Held that:- In this case, the delay is of 14 months and therefore the Commissioner has no powers whatsoever to condone the delay. Provisions of Section 85(3) are very clear and provide a specific time limit for filing appeal and therefore, if the provisions of Limitation Act are applied, the provisions of Section 85 of Finance Act, 1994 become redundant - Decided against the assessee.
-
2011 (12) TMI 120 - CESTAT, MUMBAI
Eligibility of availment of CENVAT credit of service tax paid on the services provided by the foreign person (Foreign Commission Agent) – Held that:- Board Circular F.No.345/1/2008-TRU dated 27.06.2008 clarifies that the recipient of the service is required to pay service tax under Section 66A though the service is not actually provided by the recipient but by the foreign person. Such taxable services, are not treated as 'output services' however, service tax paid under Section 66A is available as 'input credit' under CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 provided the said services are used as input services by the manufacturer or producer of final products or a provider of output taxable service. - Decided in favor of assessee.
-
2011 (12) TMI 111 - CESTAT, AHMEDABAD
Exemption from Service Tax as a small service provider – Revenue held non-eligibility of exemption - assessee deposited service tax under protest before issuance of show cause notice – Revenue later accepted the contention - Refund claimed by assessee rejected on the ground that assessee may have collected it from customers- Held that:- Just because the appellant issued invoice at gross amount and did not indicate that the Service Tax was exempt, conclusion cannot be reached that they have collected the Service Tax from the customers. Only when Service Tax was payable and was held to be payable, the question of determination of gross amount included Service Tax or not, would arise. As regards Profit & Loss Account, if the appellant followed the cash accounting method, they cannot be found fault with for showing it as expenditure. In any case, it has been paid under protest and the expenditure is booked. This does not mean that what was paid before issue of Show Cause Notice was subsequently collected from the customers. - Decided in favor of assessee.
-
2011 (12) TMI 110 - CESTAT, AHMEDABAD
Service provided by visa facilitator – Held that:- Service provided by visa facilitator in the form of assistance to individuals who intend to travel abroad, directly, does not fall under any taxable service under Section 65(105) of Finance Act, 1994. Accordingly, Stay Petition for waiver of pre-deposit of amounts involved is also allowed. - Decided in favor of assessee.
-
2011 (11) TMI 819 - SC ORDER
... ...
... ... ..... rtment of Revenue (Central Board of Excise & Customs), New Delhi. In view of the said Circular, nothing survives in these appeals for our consideration and decision. Accordingly, the appeals are disposed of as having become infructuos.
-
2011 (11) TMI 767 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD
... ...
... ... ..... submissions made by both sides, we find that the issue involved in this case is denial of Cenvat credit of the service tax paid by the service provider on behalf of the appellant to their customers of the appellant. It is undisputed that appellant is contractually obligated to their customers for providing repairs and services during the warranty period which he has out sourced to another organization. The said organization was raising the bill on the appellant for the services provided. In our considered view, the services provided by out sourced person would not be falling within the purview of additional consideration for sale. Prima facie, the stay order of the coordinate bench of the Tribunal in the case of Samsung India Electronics Pvt. Ltd. (supra) may cover the situation. In view of the foregoing, the applications for waiver of pre-deposit of the amounts involved are allowed and recovery thereof stayed till the disposal of appeals. (Dictated and pronounced in Court)
-
2011 (11) TMI 729 - CESTAT, AHMEDABAD
Demand - Interest - while filing the ST-3 returns for the period ending September 2001 and March 2002 and March 2003, the appellant had submitted a covering letter indicating the amounts received by them from UNDP for rendering services and had also claimed exemption under Notification No. 48/98 dated 24-4-98 - Once the appellant intimated the fact to the department, the suppression of fact or misdeclaration cannot be alleged - In view of the above position, appellant has a very strong prima facie case in their favour and therefore unconditional stay against the recovery of the service tax and penalty is allowed after waiving pre-deposit.
-
2011 (11) TMI 720 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD
... ...
... ... ..... ng of stay petition, on merits. 3. After considering the submissions made by learned SDR, we find that stay petition in this case needs to be allowed as the amount involved is substantial. In view of this, application for out of turn hearing of stay petition is allowed and registry is directed to list the stay petition for disposal on 30.11.2011. Notices to be issued. (Dictated and pronounced in the Court)
-
2011 (11) TMI 635 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD
... ...
... ... ..... he appellant. In our considered view, the entire issue needs to be gone into detail right from the allegations made in the show cause notice, defences taken by the appellant before the adjudicating authority and that can be done only at the time of final disposal of the appeal. At this juncture, we are of the considered view that the appellant has not made out a prima facie case for complete waiver of the pre-deposit of the amounts involved. However, keeping in mind that the appellant has deposited an amount of ₹ 37,90,754/- during the pending proceedings before the adjudicating authority, we direct the appellant to further deposit an amount of Rs. One crore (Rupees one crore only) within eight weeks from today and report compliance on 04.02.2012. Subject to such compliance being reported by the appellant, the condition of pre-deposit of balance amounts involved is waived and recovery thereof is stayed till the disposal of appeal. (Dictated and pronounced in the Court)
-
2011 (11) TMI 529 - CESTAT, KOLKATA
Penalty - GTA services - Notification No.12/2003-ST dated 20.6.2003 read with Notification No.2/2006-ST dated 1.3.2006 - Held that: Commissioner (Appeals) in his order has found that the ingredients of Section 78, viz. suppression of facts, willful mis-statement or violation of provisions of law with intent to evade tax did not exist in the instant case. He has also found that no evidence has been adduced that there was deliberate attempt on the part of the respondent to evade service tax. The respondent did not pay the service tax as confirmed in the impugned order on the premise that the same might have been paid by the transporter and he accordingly set aside the penalty under Section 78. The Department failed to produce evidence contrary to the same - Decided in favor of the assessee
-
2011 (11) TMI 528 - CESTAT, KOLKATA
Appeal rejected on the ground of delayed filing - Held that:- As per Section 85 of Finance Act, 1994 prescribed time is three months’ time for filing of Appeal – Extension of further three months on giving sufficient cause for delay – delay in filing appeal by Appellant as the person who was looking after Service Tax has left their company and as service tax is a new subject they could not file Appeal in time - Appellant is not disputing the payment of service tax which they have already paid, therefore the appellant is not likely to gain anything for not filing the Appeal in time - refusing to condone delay can result in a meritorious matter being thrown out at the very threshold and cause of justice being defeated – remand the issue to learned Commissioner(Appeals) to decide the case on merits – in favour of assessee.
........
|
