Home Case Index All Cases Service Tax 2014 2014 2014 (6) Service Tax - 2014 (6) 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 141 to 144 of 144 Records

• 2014 (6) TMI 32
  

  Claim of refund of service tax on the ground that the same was not payable - service tax was paid on notional interest after audit objections - Sub licensing of premises - Receipt of interest free security - Bar of limitation - Held that:- Revenue authorities are required to look into the limitation aspect. Admittedly, the refund is to be given only in those cases where it is not required to be deposited. As such, limitation would not apply in any case of refund, which proposition would be against the law. Further, it is well settled that the Revenue authorities, including the Tribunal, being creature of statue are required to work within the four corners of the law and cannot go beyond it. As such the refund, if otherwise admissible, has to meet the barred of limitation.

  They have applied for the refund claim on 12.08.2009. The original adjudication authority has observed that the said letter dated 12.08.2009 is in the office records but has not accepted the same on the ground that there is no evidence of having received the said letter in the office. In my view, the above findings are self-contrary. On one hand the Asstt. Commissioner is accepting the presence of the refund claim application in the office record and on the other hand has observed that the same does not show the receipt. If the same was actually not filed by the appellant, I really fail to understand as to how the said letter travelled up to the concerned file and found its way therein. As such, I deem it fit to set aside the impugned order and remand the matter to the original adjudicating authority look into the said fact afresh and to decide the issue accordingly - Decided in favour of assessee.

  ---

• 2014 (6) TMI 31
  

  Demand of service tax - event management service - Held that:- Revenue wants to charge Service Tax under the category ‘event management service’. As per the provisions of Section 65(40) of the Finance Act, event management means any service provided in relation to planning, promotion, organizing or presentation of any arts, entertainment, business, sports, marriage or any other event and includes any consultations provided in this regard. As per the provisions of Section 65(41) of the Finance Act, ‘event manager’ means any person who is engaged in providing any service in relation to event management in any manner.

  From the facts on record we find that there is no request by any franchisee or co-sponsors to organize the cricket tournament. The respondents on their own are organizing the cricket tournament. However, the franchisees or co-sponsors advertise their products by way of putting hoardings during the tournament - there is no evidence on record to show that the respondents organized the tournaments at the request of the co-sponsors or franchisees. Therefore it cannot be said that the respondents have provided any event management service and therefore the same would not attract any Service Tax - there is no evidence on record to show that the respondents organized the tournaments at the request of the co-sponsors or franchisees. Therefore it cannot be said that the respondents have provided any event management service - Decided against Revenue.

  ---

• 2014 (6) TMI 30
  

  CENVAT Credit - Availment of facility of warehousing export goods in the USA prior to distribution of the same to the ultimate buyers. - Held that:- Since the warehouses were hired in the USA beyond the jurisdiction of the Indian authorities, no Service Tax can be levied and collected on such services rendered and received abroad. Since tax was not, in the first instance, payable and the appellants merely have taken credit of what was not payable by them, the impugned demand cannot be justified. For the same reason, there is no justification for imposition of penalty and recovery of the interest amount. As such, the impugned order is set aside - Decided in favour of assessee.

  ---

• 2014 (6) TMI 29
  

  Maintainability of appeal - proof of delivery of order in original - Commissioner (Appeals) has dismissed the appeal on time-bar by observing that the same stands filed even after condonable period. - Held that:- unless the impugned documents were sent by registered post under registered AD cover. In the present case, there is nothing on record to show that the impugned order was sent under registered post. Further, the appellants by writing the letter to the Superintendent in August, 2009 have intimated to the Revenue about non-receipt of the letter - Matter remanded back - Decided in favour of assessee.

  ---

1 ....45678