Home Case Index All Cases Service Tax 2014 2014 2014 (2) Service Tax - 2014 (2) 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 233 Records

• 2014 (2) TMI 1129 - CESTAT NEW DELHI
  

  Waiver of pre-deposit of Service tax - Sale and purchase of coal or Commission agent - Business auxiliary services - Held that:- appellant is purchasing coal from the CIL under the cover of invoices raised by CIL on payment of Sales Tax. Further the coal purchased is being sold by them to small consumers in the country on the basis of invoices raised by the appellants and on payment of Sales tax. This fact, by itself, is sufficient to reflect upon the nature of the relationship being enjoyed by the appellant with M/s. Coal India Ltd. This shows that the appellant is a buyer and seller of coal and cannot be held to be providing any service to M/s. Coal India Ltd. - Following decision of Ahmedabad Stamp Vendors Association vs. Union of India [2002 (6) TMI 32 - GUJARAT High Court] - Stay granted.

  ---

• 2014 (2) TMI 1128 - CESTAT NEW DELHI
  

  Waiver of pre-deposit - Stay recovery of the tax - Site formation and clearance excavation and earth moving and demolition service - Held that:- site formation and clearance excavation and earth moving and demolition service became taxable with effect from 16.6.2005. We also find from the order in original that the third work order was dated 17th June 2005 and amount of Rs.1,20,37,101/- was the gross amount against the services rendered by the applicant. Out of which Rs.86,28,180/- had been received by the applicant towards services rendered after 16th June 2005. Prima facie this amount is a taxable as the work order itself is after 16th June 2005. Therefore the applicant does not have a case for complete waiver of pre-deposit - Conditional stay granted.

  ---

• 2014 (2) TMI 1127 - CESTAT NEW DELHI
  

  Waiver of service tax - Adjustment of Excess tax paid - Held that:- there is no provision under the Finance Act or under Service Tax Rules which provides such adjustment. The adjustment is provided only under Rule 6(3) of Service Tax Rules where the taxable service was not provided. In the present case applicant provided service and short paid the tax. In these circumstances, I find that applicant has not made out a total waiver of the amount of service tax - Conditional stay granted.

  ---

• 2014 (2) TMI 1126 - CESTAT CHENNAI
  

  Waiver of pre-deposit - applicant is providing Air Travel Agent Service. They utilized a software system developed by M.S. Galileo and M/s. Amedus during the course of providing the said service - Business Auxiliary Service - Held that:- Prime facie, the applicant activity appears to be marketing and promotion of services of M/s. Amedus and M/s. Galileo. It is seen that on an identical issue the Tribunal allowed the stay petition partly. The learned counsel for the applicant pleads that the demand is barred by limitation, which would be looked into at the time of final hearing of the appeal. As such, the appellant is directed to pre-deposit 25% of the tax - Conditional stay granted.

  ---

• 2014 (2) TMI 1089 - CESTAT CHENNAI
  

  Demand of service tax - Penalty u/s 76, 77 & 78 - Recovery Agent for loans given by different Financial Institutions - Held that:- applicant has not disclosed full details of the value of the service provided by them and amounts collected as service tax from various clients. Instead the applicant has only asked for cross examination of representatives of the Financial Institutions. Since this case is based on records, cross examination of representatives of the banks is not that important. Going by figures admitted by the applicant itself there is substantial amount of tax to be paid. Under the circumstances, the applicants failed to make the case of total waiver of pre-deposit of dues arising from the impugned order - Conditional stay granted.

  ---

• 2014 (2) TMI 1088 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD
  

  Waiver of pre-deposit - Cargo Handling Services - Imposition of interest and equivalent penalty - Held that:- at least demand for the period June 2007 to September 2010 seems to be hit by limitation as the earlier show cause notice culminated in an order which is in favour of the appellant - appellant needs to be put to some condition for hearing and disposing the appeal at least for the demands which are raised within the limitation period - Conditional stay granted.

  ---

• 2014 (2) TMI 1087 - CESTAT MUMBAI
  

  Denial of refund/rebate claim - Bar of limitation - Time limit as per Notification 12/05 read with Rule 5 of the Excise Rules - Held that:- wherever no time limit is prescribed, the time limit prescribed under the Act will be applicable. Admittedly, in Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944 time limit has been prescribed. Therefore, provisions of Section 11B of the Central Excise Act are attracted in this case and as per Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, the rebate claim filed are barred by limitation - Following decision of Emco Ltd. vs. CCE [2011 (6) TMI 567 - CESTAT, MUMBAI] - Decided in favour of Revenue.

  ---

• 2014 (2) TMI 1086 - CESTAT MUMBAI
  

  Waiver of pre-deposit - Business Auxiliary Service - collection of fly ash - Job work - Held that:- To fall under Business Auxiliary Service, the activity undertaken should amount to producing or processing of goods on behalf of the client. In the present case, fly ash is produced by the Nasik Thermal Power Station. The appellant does not process or produce fly ash at all. They merely collect the fly ash from Nasik Thermal Power Station and delivers the same at the premises of his client M/s. Dirk India Ltd. in the vehicles given by M/s. Dirk India Ltd. Thus, the service is more appropriately classifiable under Cargo Handling Service and not under Business Auxiliary Service. In view of the above, the appellant has made out a strong prima facie case for waiver of pre-deposit of the dues adjudged. Accordingly, we grant waiver from pre-deposit of the adjudicated liabilities against the appellant and stay recovery thereof during the pendency of the appeal - Stay granted.

  ---

• 2014 (2) TMI 1085 - CESTAT CHENNAI
  

  Demand of differential duty - Discrepancy in annual financial statements and ST-3 Returns - Suppression of value of services rendered - Held that:- Prima facie, it appears that the applicant was providing only security services and no proof of supply of man-power supply has been produced at lower levels and some feeble evidences have been produced before Tribunal as a fresh evidence - Conditional stay granted.

  ---

• 2014 (2) TMI 1084 - CESTAT CHENNAI
  

  Waiver of pre deposit - Demand of service tax - Service of training programs - Held that:- Prima facie case not in favour of assessee - Conditional stay granted.

  ---

• 2014 (2) TMI 1083 - CESTAT BANGALORE
  

  Waiver of pre deposit - Demand of service tax - Commercial Training or Coaching Service - Quantum of the demand - Liability not disputed - Held that:- refunds made by the assessee to their students during the period of dispute were allowed to be excluded from taxable value of service rendered in the preceding half-years. For instance, while calculating the taxable value for the half-year October 2003 to March 2004, the total amount of fees collected from the students for that half-year less refunds made to the students in the succeeding half-year was adopted as taxable value. If that be so, it is incomprehensible from the impugned order as to why the refunds to students in the half-year April 2006 to September 2006 were not allowed to be excluded from the taxable value of the service provided in the previous half-year - Conditional stay granted.

  ---

• 2014 (2) TMI 1082 - CESTAT CHENNAI
  

  Waiver of predeposit - valuation - Civil construction - included the value of goods/services involved in any other contract - Held that:- it appears from the impugned order that appellant has paid VAT on the material of civil construction. As far as the claim of the applicant to avail option under Rule 3(1) of the Rules 2007 is concerned, prima facie we find force in the submission of Ld. AR. However, we find that the applicant have already paid 4% in terms of rule 3(1) of the Rules, 2007. In view of that, the applicant is directed to deposit 20% of the tax demanded in both the appeals within 6 weeks. Upon such deposit, predeposit of the balance amounts of tax, penalties along with interest is waived and recovery is stayed till pendency of the appeals - Conditional stay granted.

  ---

• 2014 (2) TMI 1045 - CESTAT NEW DELHI
  

  Waiver of penalty in respect of delayed payment of service tax on renting of immovable property - Section 80 was amended and a new provision of section (2) was introduced, vide Finance Act, 2012 - Held that:- The appellant in the present case has deposited the service tax alongwith interest on 03.12.2011 and 25.05.2012. As such the said provision is fully applicable to the facts of the present case. - Following the decision in M/s. Euro Ceramics Ltd. Versus Rajkot [2013 (5) TMI 538 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD], penalty waived - Decided in favor of assessee.

  ---

• 2014 (2) TMI 1044 - CESTAT CHENNAI
  

  Refund of CENVAT Credit - eligibility of input service credit taken on lift maintenance or air-conditioner, renting of cafeteria area, sale of foreign currency, AMC to air-conditioning - Held that:- denial of credit on air-conditioner, renting of cafeteria areas, AMC to air-conditioner are not sustainable. - Decision in the case of assessee's own case [2013 (12) TMI 741 - CESTAT CHENNAI] followed.

  The respondent is an 100% EOU with the Software Technology Park of India and during the course of business some of the employees were required to travel outside India to the patent company for knowledge transfer relating to the business. It is also noted that the lift maintenance is related to their office premises. - all these activities are covered within the definition of input services under Rules 2004 - Decided against the revenue.

  ---

• 2014 (2) TMI 1043 - CESTAT NEW DELHI
  

  Valuation - construction service - inclusion of free supplies - Held that:- free supplies made by the Customers to the construction service provider would not get added in the gross amount charged for providing construction services. - Following the decision in the case of Bhayana Builders Pvt. Ltd. vs. CST, Delhi [2013 (9) TMI 294 - CESTAT NEW DELHI] decided in favor of assessee.

  ---

• 2014 (2) TMI 1042 - CESTAT MUMBAI
  

  Levy of penalty for delayed payment of service tax - works contact service - Held that:- in view of the on going contract which was entered into prior to 10.09.2004 and the levy of tax being a new levy from 10.09.2004 and the appellant was under the bona fide belief that they do not fall under the Service Tax liability and keeping in mind the conduct of the appellant that he has discharged the Service Tax alongwith interest soon after being pointed out, it is a fit case for setting aside the penalty under Section 78

  ---

• 2014 (2) TMI 1041 - CESTAT NEW DELHI
  

  Stay application - Demand of service tax - Intellectual property service - Transfer of licence for production of certain aircrafts and equipments and transfer of technology - Held that:- confirmation of demand under IPR category is justified. Similarly, the appellant has not disputed that the engineers of foreign parties came to their premises for giving advice and consultancy for the manufacture of aircrafts. As such, we prima facie agree with the Adjudicating Authority that the demand on the said count is also sustainable - demands stand raised by invoking the longer period of limitation. The Adjudicating Authority has himself extended the benefit of Section 80 in respect of penalties to be imposed on the appellant in terms of various Sections. If that be so, there cannot be any malafide or suppression on the part of the appellant so as to invoke the longer period of limitation - Conditional stay granted.

  ---

• 2014 (2) TMI 1040 - CESTAT CHENNAI
  

  Rectification of mistake - Change in cause title - Held that:- Registry is directed to correct the cause title insofar as the words written ‘Commissioner of Central Excise, Chennai IV Commissionerate’ would be substituted by ‘Commissioner of Service Tax, Chennai’. The assessee is also directed to mention the correct cause title in further proceedings - Rectification made.

  ---

• 2014 (2) TMI 1039 - CESTAT NEW DELHI
  

  Demand of service taxes - Benefit of Notification No.24/2004 - Denial of benefit in respect of computer training service - Held that:- Following decision of C.C.E. vs. Sunwin Technosolution P. Ltd. [2010 (9) TMI 71 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] - Conditional stay granted.

  ---

• 2014 (2) TMI 1038 - CESTAT NEW DELHI
  

  Stay application - Commercial coaching and training service - Recovery of Credit - Imposition of interest and penalty - Held that:- use catering service, photography service, service of repair and maintenance of the motor vehicles and renting of halls and travelling expenses is not disputed. I am of prima facie view that all these services have nexus with the appellant’s activity of providing commercial coaching and training and, as such, the same appear to be covered by the definition of input service as given in Rule 2 (l) of the Cenvat Credit Rules. In view of this, the requirement of pre-deposit of Cenvat credit demand, interest and penalty is waived for hearing of the appeal and the recovery thereof is stayed till the disposal of the appeal - Stay granted.

  ---

123456........ 12