|
Advanced Search Options
Service Tax - Case Laws
Showing 41 to 60 of 1337 Records
-
2011 (11) TMI 527 - CESTAT, BANGALORE
Application for stay - rejection of certain refund claims - Rule 5 of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 claiming refund of unutilized CENVAT credit on input services which were claimed to have been utilized for export of output services - Held that: the matters require to be sent back to the learned Commissioner (Appeals) for fresh decision, for which we have more reasons than one. Firstly, there is a glaring contradiction between the findings recorded by the Commissioner (Appeals) on the substantive issue and his decision to remand the case to the lower authority. On the one hand, in respect of the input services, clear findings were recorded to the effect that these services were essential, or integrally connected with, or having direct nexus to, the output services exported by the respondents. On the other hand, it was observed that the question of 'nexus' needed to be considered afresh by the lower authority on the basis of relevant evidence to be produced by them - Decided in favor of the assessee by way of remand to Commissioner (A)
-
2011 (11) TMI 526 - CESTAT, AHMEDABAD
Waiver of pre-deposit of service tax on the NSE/BSE transaction charges and Demat charges - Held that:- In lieu of decisions of the this Bench in the case of M/s. Navkar Share & Stock Brokers Pvt. Limited [2011 (8) TMI 241 - CESTAT, AHMEDABAD] wherein after granting unconditional stay the Tribunal remitted the matter back to the first appellate authority - allow the stay petitions filed by the assessee and stay recovery thereof, till disposal of appeals.
-
2011 (11) TMI 525 - CESTAT, CHENNAI
Application for stay - Delayed payment of service tax - Penalty u/s 76 - Held that: the net demand raised on the appellants is only Rs 4,766/ - towards tax and the adjudicating Commissioner has demanded interest amounts of Rs. 511/ - and Rs.76,972/ - All these amounts have been paid by the appellants, according to the ld. Advocate. In addition, a penalty of Rs.8,87,392/ - has been imposed on the appellants
After the amendment made with effect from 18.4.2006, the penalty prescribed under Section 76 of the Finance Act, 1994, has become mandatory as the amended provision now requires that the tax payer shall pay the penalty as specified in the said section - the legal provisions under Section 76 do not provide any lee way to carve out any exception as the same provides for no discretion. Hence the appeal of the appellants fails in respect of the period from 18.4.2006 onwards
Delayed tax deposited after issuance of SCN - the delay in payment of tax ranges from 413 days to 812 days - The delays are substantial, as the penalty provision under Section 76 was not mandatory prior to the amendment made in 2006, some leniency can be shown to the appellants. Accordingly, as regards the period prior to 18.4.2006, penalty imposed is reduced to Rs.50,000/. The impugned order is modified to the above extent and the matter is remitted to the original authority for the limited purpose of re-quantifying the penalty amount taking into consideration the above reduction in penalty - Decided in favor of the assessee
-
2011 (11) TMI 524 - CESTAT, AHMEDABAD
Refund - Notification No.41/2007-ST - ld.Counsel submitted that the Notification No.17/2009, dt.7.7.09 in Sr.No.16 of the table has covered the terminal handling charges. According to Sr.No.16, the Service Tax on services which are commonly known as terminal handling is admissible and it is also indicated that "classified under any sub-clause of clause (105) of Section 65." - Held that: the appellant has not been able to make out a prima facie case in their favour and therefore is required to deposit the amount. No financial difficulty is pleaded - Decided against the assessee by way of direction to deposit the demand
-
2011 (11) TMI 523 - CESTAT, AHMEDABAD
Waiver of pre-deposit of amount of Rs.7,52,965/- along with interest and penalties - Learned counsel would submit that as regards Health and Fitness Services and Club and Association Services, both the lower authorities have erred in taking wrong amounts for the calculations - Held that: the issue involved in this case is regards service tax liability on the amounts received from caterers or decorators and Business Auxiliary Services, is arguable. We find that service tax liability under the Health and Fitness Centre and Club Association services have been confirmed by taking wrong figures - Decided in favor of the assessee by way of direction to deposit an amount of Rs.1,50,000
-
2011 (11) TMI 522 - CESTAT, CHENNAI
Whether the appellants are eligible to take credit at service tax paid on different services for the purpose of paying duty in respect of various goods manufactured by them – Held that:- The order of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court extending the credit of tax paid on all services used in relation to the business of manufacturing the final product is required to be followed, since this order of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court was not before the authorities below when they decided the present cases set aside the impugned orders in respect of both appeals and remand the matter to the respective original authorities for fresh decision.
-
2011 (11) TMI 521 - CESTAT, CHENNAI
Application for waiver of pre-deposit - credit of service tax paid on taxable services except if the service/ services are used exclusively in or in relation to the manufacture of exempted goods or providing exempted services, both taxable as well as exempted services are provided in the present case and, therefore, prime facie Rule 6(5) covers the situation - waiver of pre-deposit allowed
-
2011 (11) TMI 520 - CESTAT, BANGALORE
Whether CENVAT credit on "outdoor catering services" availed by the respondent for supply of food in the factory canteen to their workers/employees during the period of dispute is admissible in terms of Rule 2(1) of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004, which defines 'input service' – Held that:- The “outdoor catering service” availed by the respondent cannot mature to be an ‘input service' unless it is proved during the material period, they had employed more than 250 workers and the cost of supply of food to the workers was also included in the cost of production of excisable goods - Since neither of these aspects is proved in the appeal memo – against assessee.
-
2011 (11) TMI 519 - CESTAT, CHENNAI
Claim of refund / exemption from service tax rejected – Notification No. 41/2007 dated 6.10.2007 - Revenue stated the complete documentation submitted on a later point of time beyond the dates specified for submitting the refund application, the claim is time- barred - Held that:- The appellants cannot be penalized and the export benefit cannot be refused for no fault of assessee when the relevant document was handed over to them after considerable delay by the Port Trust authorities - claim should be treated as filed within time and the refund allowed - impugned order is set aside and the matter remanded to the original authority to consider it afresh.
-
2011 (11) TMI 518 - CESTAT, CHENNAI
Challenging the penalty imposed under Section 78 – Held that: - The appellants have by their own statement admitted that they recovered the tax amount from the customer which is in the public sector but, they did not either pay the tax amount to the Government nor they sought any clarification regarding the category under which they were required to pay the tax - registration and payment of tax and interest has been taken only after the intimation has been sent to assessee - the appellants are guilty of suppression with the intention to evade tax – against assessee.
-
2011 (11) TMI 517 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI
Show cause notice was issued asking them why service tax of Rs. 4,14,79,640/- should not be recovered from them under Section 73(1) of the Finance Act, 1994 along with appropriate interest and why penalties under Sections 76, 77 and 78 - Adjudicating Authority have already discussed in the brief facts of the case that the amount of Rs. 3,57,32,380/- have been deposited by the appellants through book adjustment through their headquarters office at Lucknow - It is true that DTS was changed into BSNL with effect from 1-11-2000 - The fact that they paid service tax through a mode which was permissible earlier but was not permissible from 1-11-2000, cannot be a very serious matter considering that it is a procedural matter and not a substantive matter. What is required is to verify whether tax dues have been paid in the designated account of Government of India for receiving service tax payment - The Counsel for the BSNL submits that they are willing to produce documents showing payment of impugned service tax into the designated account though such payment was not through TR-6 challans - Appeal is rejected
-
2011 (11) TMI 516 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
Cenvat credit - Input services - service tax credit on the input services pertaining to maintenance of its staff colony, plantation and godown for the period October, 2005 to January, 2007. - held that:- the phrase ‘input service' has been given the widest amplitude. The definition by its very nature is an inclusive one and the words used therein leave no room to doubt that all services used in relation, directly or indirectly, to the manufacture of final products and clearance of such products upto the place of removal are covered. The inclusive part of the definition manifests that services used in relation to the setting up of the factory or office or premises, including its modernization, renovation, repair etc., and also services used in relation to advertisement, sales promotion, market research, procurement of inputs and all activities relating to the business would also fall within the ambit of ‘input services'.
The staff colony, provided by the respondent Company, being directly and intrinsically linked to its manufacturing activity could not therefore be excluded from consideration. Consequently, the services which were crucial for maintaining the staff colony, such as lawn mowing, garbage cleaning, maintenance of swimming pool, collection of household garbage, harvest cutting, weeding etc., necessarily had to be considered as ‘input services' falling within the ambit of Rule 2( l ) of the CENVAT Rules, 2004.
.As regards the plantation activity, the same had an obvious nexus with the manufacturing activity of the respondent Company. - Cenvat Credit allowed.
-
2011 (11) TMI 425 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI
Demand of service tax on delivery of RMC at site - appellant was engaged in preparation of ready mix concrete (RMC) - Commissioner has not considered that it had not received any service tax over and above the gross amount collected from its customers - In absence of cogent evidence to the effect of providing taxable service, primary and dominant object of the contract throws light that contract between the parties was to supply ready mix concrete (RMC) but not to provide any taxable service - Appeal is allowed
-
2011 (11) TMI 424 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI
Application for refund - Notification No. 41/07-S.T., dated 6-10-2007 - The claim was relating to service tax paid on “port services” and “other port services” charged to service tax under Section 65(105)(zn) and 65(105)(zzl) and transportation of goods by road from factory to ICD and transportation of goods by rail from ICD to port of export - Tribunal in the case of Western Agencies v. C.C.E. (2011 -TMI - 206087 - CESTAT, CHENNAI (LB)) holding that all the services provided within the port area in relation to vessels and goods will be classifiable as “port services” and therefore, the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) is not sustainable - Decided in favor of the assessee - condition of pre deposit waived.
-
2011 (11) TMI 423 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI
Cenvat credit - Invoices prior to 10.9.2004 - receipt of services at registered premises - Invoices without bearing date - receipt and installation of inputs and capital goods outside the premises - held that:- Matter related to verification of date on the Invoice remanded back.
Regarding invoices prior to 10.9.2004 - held that:- The Commissioner’s finding that during the period prior to 10-9-2004, in terms of Service Tax Credit Rules, 2002, the Cenvat credit was available only in respect of those input services which were of the same category as that of output service is factually incorrect as these rules had been amended w.e.f. 14-5-2003 by Notification No. 5/2003-S.T. so as to permit Cenvat credit even in respect of those input services which were not falling in the same category as that of output service. - Credit allowed for invoices issued on or after 14-5-2003..
-
2011 (11) TMI 421 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI
Stay of Demand - The department was of the view that the services of lead managers to the issue and underwritings and other banking & financial services had been received by the Appellant from offshore services provider - ABN and JP Morgan and, therefore, the appellants being service recipients are liable to pay service tax in respect of the same - The services provided by the underwriters is taxable under Section 65(105)(z) read with Section 65(116) & 65(117) of the Finance Act, 1994 - Held that: the prima facie view that the services provided by the appellant for which about Rs. 12,34,37,000/- had been paid by the them to the offshore service providers were taxable services of Underwriter's Services and Merchant Banker' Services - Pre-deposit ordered partly.
-
2011 (11) TMI 418 - CESTAT, AHMEDABAD
Waiver of pre-deposit - service tax liability has been confirmed against the appellant, on the ground that the appellant is liable to pay service tax on the NSE/BSE transaction charges and Demat charges - Tribunal in the case of Rajvi Stock Broking Ltd. v. CST [2010 -TMI - 78532 - CESTAT, AHMEDABAD] - the stay petitions are allowed
-
2011 (11) TMI 415 - CESTAT, AHMEDABAD
Demand - According to the agreement between NKPL and the agreement, the appellant was to pay specific amounts determined on the basis of number of containers/jars/pet bottles produced by the appellant - learned A.R. submits that the appellant was supplying manpower for conversion of raw materials to finished products and in view of the fact that plant & machinery, space and all other facilities are provided by the principal, the activity undertaken by the appellant is nothing but supply of manpower - it can be seen that there are two requirements for determining whether a service is taxable service under the category of manpower recruitment or supply agency - Held that: department has totally failed to show in which manner the service provided by the appellant can be categorized under manpower recruitment or supply - Appeal is allowed
-
2011 (11) TMI 414 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI
Demand - CCE found that the ST-3 returns submitted by BSNL, Banda UP (East) did not include the value of GSM services rendered in Banda during the period Oct., 2003 to Sep., 2008 and was prima facie of the view that Service tax on such services was not paid - Appellants submit that for services rendered through land lines each Secondary Switching Area (SSA) of the company was registered for payment of service tax and they were paying service tax for each SSA in the Commissionerate where the SSA was located - It is not clear from the SCN or from the impugned order whether the gross value, for which impugned Service tax has been demanded, was billed from Banda Office and collections accounted by Banda Office - the registration certificate dated 5-9-2006 does not have a list of premises covered by the registration. There is also an argument that centralized registration to include the premises of Banda office was taken only from 10-12-2008 - It is not clear whether the issue being dealt with in the impugned order is one of procedural violations or a matter of revenue loss which is a substantive matter - Appeal is allowed by way of remand
-
2011 (11) TMI 410 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI
Demand - Notification No. 14/2004-S.T. or Notification No. 25/2004-S.T - Time limitation - Whether service tax is to be paid on such commission categorizing the activity of the Appellants as “business auxiliary service - The department made out a case that their activity amounted to “Business Auxiliary Service” even for the period prior to 10-9-2004 and issued a Show Cause Notice dated 31-7-2007 demanding such tax for the period 20-10-2004 to 18-12-200 - Assessee submit that though their service is being classified by revenue in “Business Auxiliary Service’’, their service is in relation to banking and other financial service and they should be given the benefit of this notification - Kerala High Court in the case of C.C.E. v. Car World Autoline - (2009 (6) TMI 423 - KERALA HIGH COURT), where the Court held that the exemption is available only to an assesse providing banking and financial services - Held that: the demand in this case can be sustained only to the extent covered in the normal period of limitation - Appeal is partly allowed
........
|
