Home Case Index All Cases Service Tax 2014 2014 This

Law	-- All -- GST Income Tax Benami Property Customs Corporate Laws Securities / SEBI Insolvency & Bankruptcy FEMA Law of Competition 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-- 2025 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 >= 2 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 221 to 240 of 2349 Records

• 2014 (12) TMI 244
  

  Cargo handling charges - Appellant render composite service and charge a lump sum amount - Held that:- Appellant collected transportation charges and cargo handling charges separately and discharged Service Tax liability on cargo handling charges. This amounts to tax planning and not tax evasion as alleged by the Revenue. Further, the activity of the appellant was made known to the department as early as in March, 2003 and nothing prevented the department in issuing a show cause notice as soon as they came to know of the activity of the appellant. However, the department waited till 3-8-2005 to issue a show cause notice for the period from 2002 to 31-3-2005. It is thus seen that bulk of the demand pertains to the period beyond the normal period of limitation.

  We have perused the show cause notice issued to the appellant. Apart from making a bland statement that the appellant has suppressed the facts from the department, no evidence has been led by the Revenue to show that the appellant in fact suppressed the facts with an intention to evade tax. The appellant being a Public Sector Undertaking of Government of India, it would not be correct to infer any evasion of duty or intention to do so as held by the Hon’ble High Court of Punjab & Haryana in the case of Markfed Refined Oil & Allied Industries cited [2009 (7) TMI 1204 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT] - Decided in favour of assessee..

  ---

• 2014 (12) TMI 243
  

  Interest on delayed payment of tax - Section 75 - Provisional assessment - Held that:- There is no final assessment order at all. This situation is covered by the decision of Hon’ble High Court of Bombay in the case of Commissioner Central Excise, Nagpur v. ISPAT Industries Ltd. - [2010 (10) TMI 178 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT] wherein Hon’ble High Court took the view that if differential duty was paid even before final assessment was made, the assessee is not liable to pay interest. Further, this decision was followed by the Tribunal in the case of Tata Motors Ltd. [2011 (3) TMI 531 - CESTAT, MUMBAI]. In the present case, there is no final assessment order at all and the assessee has paid the interest before final assessment. Therefore, the question of demanding interest does not arise when there is no final assessment order or the full amount of duty has been discharged before final assessment order passed by the proper officer. - Decided in favour of assessee.

  ---

• 2014 (12) TMI 242
  

  Waiver of pre deposit - Classification of service - Clearing and forwarding agency service - GTA Service - Held that:- Appellant does not undertake any of activities clarified by Board’s Circular No. B-43/7/97-TRU, dated 11-7-1997 to be a C&F Agent service and therefore, there is merit in the contention of the appellant that the activity does not come within the purview of “clearing and forwarding agency service” as proposed by the department. In the Sendoz Impex Ltd. [2011 (4) TMI 1151 - CESTAT, KOLKATA] case and Karam Chand Thappar & Bros (Coal Sales) Ltd. case (2010 (4) TMI 452 - CESTAT, KOLKATA) a similar view was taken by the Tribunal on the question whether transportation of coal from colliery to customers premises by arranging for the transportation through rail would amount to “clearing and forwarding agency service” or not and it was held that the same would not be classifiable under “clearing and forwarding agency service”. Appellant has made out a strong case in their favour for grant of stay against the dues adjudged in respect of “clearing and forwarding agency service”. - In any case, the appellant has discharged Service Tax on the consideration received under the category of GTA service on 25% value of the service. As regards the demand under GTA service, the appellant has already discharged a sum of about ₹ 77 lakhs as against the demand of ₹ 94 lakhs approximately - Stay granted.

  ---

• 2014 (12) TMI 241
  

  Business Auxiliary Services - nature of subsequent sale - Benefit of section 6(2) of CST Act - Whether the appellant is liable to be taxed under the category of Business Auxiliary Services or not for the transactions of purchasing final goods manufactured by the subsidiary company and delivered directly to their purchaser in Jharkhand - Held that:- Appellant is a manufacturer; that due to production constraints, order placed by ACC Jharkhand for supply of manufactured goods by the appellant was procured by them from their subsidiary company WSL in Karnataka; appellant placed a purchase order in the name of WSL for the finished goods to be delivered directly to ACC Jharkhand; purchase order also indicated discharge of Central Excise duty as also CST @ 4% and the goods should be delivered directly to ACC Jharkhand. WSL delivered the goods to ACC Jharkhand and raised the commercial invoices to the appellant and duty paying documents indicated appellant s name as buyer. The bone of contention between the dept and the appellant is an amount which has been offered as discount to the appellant by WSL on the transactions of sale of Grinding Media to ACC Jharkhand.

  ACC has issued the C-Form in the name of the appellant for the self same transactions entered by appellant with WSL. Holistically, reading of the three documents which were statutory forms required to be filed by the appellant to the state government authorities i.e., Sales Tax/VAT authorities, we find that the appellant has recorded the transactions between them and WSL as a purchase transaction and transaction between them and ACC as sales transaction for the goods delivered by WSL to ACC directly from Karnataka to Jharkhand. The entire transactions as reproduced by us herein above indicates that the said transactions is nothing but an activity of purchase and sale of the goods. Adjudicating Authority has not correctly appreciated the positions of Section 6 of the CST Act in as much as, on perusal of said section, we note it provides interstate sales transactions effected by transfer of documents of title to such goods during the movement from one state to another. In the case in hand, the goods moved from Karnataka to Jharkhand the transfer of documents took place during such movement is not in dispute.

  Adjudicating Authority has illustrated the transactions in Paragraph No 41 of the OIO. On perusal of such illustrative documents, we find that the WSL has raised the Excise duty paying invoice on which they have indicated discharge of CST @ 3% and invoiced the same to the appellant herein. The appellant herein has in turn invoiced the entire amount with CST to ACC and submitted C-Forms given by ACC to the VAT authorities. The VAT authorities have not disputed these transactions and has accepted that this is an interstate sales transactions though there was no movement of goods from Karnataka to Gujarat and Gujarat to Jharkhand. Activity of the appellant cannot be considered as a Business Auxiliary Services and liable for Service tax under the Finance Act, 1994. Apex Court in the case of State of Tamil Nadu vs Dharangadhara Trading Co Ltd (1988 (5) TMI 352 - Supreme Court of India) has held that benefit of section 6(2) of CST Act cannot be denied for subsequent sale made to predetermined buyer, is the ratio that will be applicable. - Decided in favour of assessee.

  ---

• 2014 (12) TMI 240
  

  Tour operator service - Service done in two pats - Stage Carriage and Contract carriage service - Whether contract carriage operation can be considered as tour and subject to Service Tax under the category of tour operator - Held that:- ‘stage carriage’ and ‘contract carriage’ are the terms used for the type of operation. Tourist vehicle is a term in which certain specifications have been prescribed under Rule 128 of the Central Motor Vehicles Rules. There are certain broad specifications provided in general for motor vehicles. However, for tourist vehicle, the specifications provided relate to more comfort etc. It is important to note that a vehicle meeting the tourist vehicle specifications can also be used for stage carriage operation. Similarly, vehicles meeting the tourist vehicle specifications can also be used for contract carriage operation. Keeping in view the nature, tours would normally be conducted in a contract carriage and not in the stage carriage operation.

  In some of the impugned orders, we observe that the assessee has given the table indicating the specifications of the ordinary buses of MSRTC and the corresponding specifications for tourist vehicle. Certain certificates have also been produced from independent engineer/persons relating to the specifications of MSRTC buses. In fact the Commissioner (Appeals) in some cases based upon such statement, has allowed the assessee’s appeals on the grounds that there is nothing to prove that the vehicles are tourist vehicles. We also note that these certificates are general in nature and not specific to the actual vehicles which were given for contract carriage operation. MSRTC will have not only ordinary buses but deluxe buses or luxury basis or air-conditioned buses. Some of these vehicles may or may not be meeting the specifications of tourist vehicle. In view of this position, we consider it necessary to set aside the matter in all the nine appeals and remand the matter to the original authority to examine whether any of the contract carriage operation was carried out by MSRTC using a vehicle which meets the specifications prescribed for tourist vehicle under Rule 128 of the Central Motor Vehicles Rules. - matter remanded back - Decided in favour of assessee.

  ---

• 2014 (12) TMI 206
  

  Denial of refund claim - export of Business Auxiliary Service - relevant date - date of payment of service tax or date of export - Held that:- Respondents have relied on Tribunal judgements in the case of Mahindra World City vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Jaipur-I [2013 (7) TMI 590 - CESTAT NEW DELHI] and Vodafone Cellular Ltd. vs. CCE [2014 (3) TMI 117 - CESTAT MUMBAI]. I also note that DGST in the booklet "Frequently asked question on service tax" dt. 16.09.2011 in response to question 6.3 has clarified that the relevant date for calculation of limitation period in respect of filing refund claims relating to service tax is the date of payment of service tax. Therefore, respondents cannot be put to terms in the face of this Circular which has not been withdrawn. - Decided against assessee.

  ---

• 2014 (12) TMI 205
  

  Denial of refund claim - use of specified services in export of goods - Notification No. 17/2009-ST dt. 07.07.2009 - Whether refund claim filed by the appellant is eligible in view of the fact that service tax liability was not discharged by the appellants - Held that:- Assessee have not paid service tax to the provider of the service and instead made the payment of service tax involved under section 68 (2) of the Finance Act, 1994. Further, condition 2 (a) of the said notification no. 17/2009-ST stipulates that the person liable to pay service tax under section 68 of the said Act on the specified service provided to the exporter and used for export of the said goods shall not be eligible to claim exemption for the specified service. As the respondents were liable to pay the said amount of service tax under Section 68 (2) of the Act and they accordingly discharged the said liability, they shall not be eligible to claim exemption for specified services in view of the condition 2(a) of the said notification. Thus, there is strength in the contentions of the department that the said amount of refund claim is not as per proviso (c) to para 1 and condition 2(a) of the Notification no. 17/2009-ST dated 7.7.09. As such, the sanction of the said refund claim vide the impugned order is not in accordance with provisions of the said notification no. 17/2009-ST and therefore, the sanction of the said amount vide the impugned order is erroneous and is set-aside - Decided against assessee.

  ---

• 2014 (12) TMI 204
  

  Business Auxiliary Service - Processing of Textile materials for chemical wash - Exemption under Notification No.14/2004-ST dated 10.9.2004 - Held that:- On scrutiny of the records of the appellants, it was noticed that the appellant had paid the amount towards ‘processing of textile materials for chemical wash charges to M/s. Testex, Swiss, Glancario and Reni Hendriks, Holand. So, there is no dispute of the fact that the appellant paid the charges for textile processing. Hence, they are eligible for exemption benefit under Notification No. 14/2004-ST dated 10.9.2004, as amended. In the present case, there is no dispute of the facts and therefore, in the facts and circumstances of the case, we find that the appellants are eligible for the exemption benefit. - Decided in favour of assessee.

  ---

• 2014 (12) TMI 203
  

  Denial of refund claim - Scientific and Technical Consultancy Service - whether the refund claims have been filed within the time limit prescribed in Rule 5 of the Cenvat Credit Rules read with notification No. 5/2006 and Section 11B of the Central Excise Act - Held that:- Under Section 83 of the Finance Act, the provisions of Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, shall apply in relation to service tax as they apply in relation to a duty of excise. Therefore, it is inferred that just as the relevant date in the case of Central Excise is the date of export of goods, the relevant date in the present case would mean would be the date on which the services are exported. This view is also stated in the case of M/s. Affinity Express India Pvt. Ltd. (2014 (6) TMI 593 - CESTAT MUMBAI) and GTN Engineering (I) (2011 (8) TMI 960 - MADRAS HIGH COURT). This being my stated view, the respondent would be eligible for refund in respect of all invoices except two invoices, namely invoice No. RPIN/EOU/2008/033 dt. 27/06/2008 and invoice No. RPIN/EOU/2008/037 dt. 30/06/2008 under which the services were provided in 2007 but billed in June 2008 and for which refund is claimed on 15.4.2009.

  There are conflicting decisions of Tribunal on the issue in different case; therefore, issue is referred to the President for consideration by the Larger Bench.

  Whether the "relevant date” for deciding the limiting period of one year under Clause 6 of Appendix to Notification 5/2006-CE(NT) dt. 14.3.2006 for sanction of refund of Cenvat Credit under Rule 5 of Cenvat Credit Rules read with Notification No. 5/2006-CE(NT) dt. 14.3.2006 in the case where service is exported is

  (a) The date of export of service, or

  (b) The date of export invoice, or

  (c) The data of receipt of foreign exchange whether is part of full or advanced

  Or

  (d) The date when both activities have been completed i.e. service has been exported and foreign exchange has been received (as foreign exchange may be received in advance).

  ---

• 2014 (12) TMI 202
  

  Cenvat credit – eligibility of the assessee to utilize the cenvat credit taken by them of the service tax and of the central excise duty, for discharging the service tax liability on GTA services – High Court admitted the appeal of Revenue against the order of Tribunal [2012 (7) TMI 738 - CESTAT, AHMEDABAD] on following questions of law:-

  Whether the CESTAT, WZB, Ahmedabad is right in allowing use of Cenvat credit for discharging Service Tax on the service falling under the category of “transport of goods by road” treating the same as an “output service” at the end of recipient who has used it as “input service”?

  Whether the learned CESTAT, WZB, Ahmedabad is right in placing reliance on the judgment of the Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka in the case of Aravind Fashions Limited [2011 (9) TMI 852 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT] where the facts are different?

  ---

• 2014 (12) TMI 170
  

  Waiver of pre deposit - multi-level marketing company - Service of providing various marketing materials for the purpose of marketing of their (the appellant's) products - Classification of service - Penalty u/s 76 & 77 - Held that:- It is seen that the material provided to the distributors is clearly meant for the purpose of marketing of the appellants products and a perusal of the definition of Support Services of Business or Commerce prima facie makes it evident that this would get covered under the scope of the said definition, at least under that limb of the inclusive part which says operational assistance for marketing’. It is pertinent to mention that the main part of the definition of Support Services of Business or Commerce is arguably too broad to be a valid taxable expression and therefore its inclusive part has to be fallen upon to delineate the scope of the said definition and that is what has been done presently. - Prim facie case is against the assessee.

  Allowing companies to address in conferences - Business Support service - Held that:- The service tax was demanded on the ground that the Support Services of Business or Commerce was rendered to the insurance-related companies by providing them platform of meetings of the distributors/leaders in order to address the distributors/leaders for furtherance of their insurance business. Prima facie, it is not at once very clear as to under which the limb of the inclusive part of the aforesaid definition this activity would fall. Thus prima facie with regard to this component of demand the appellants have a fairly reasonable case for waiver of pre-deposit.

  Activity of Mailing List Compilation - Held that:- the appellants’ contention that they had not compiled any data for the insurance related companies falls totally flat face first. Having thus shown that the data was actually compiled for their clients, it may not be necessary to state that a careful reading of the definition of ‘mailing list compilation and mailing’ reveals that the words ‘for or on behalf of the client’ are applicable only to clause (ii) of the definition and not to clause (i) because clause (ii) is separated from clause (i) by a semi colon and the word ‘or’. Separation by semi colon makes clause (i) and (i) self-contained. Thus, the contention of the appellants that the compilation has to be for or on behalf of the client does not represent the correct reading/appreciation of the statutory definition. Thus, prima facie, the department has a strong case with regard to this component of demand.

  A deposit of 50% of the demand components mentioned at Sr. No. 1 and 3 of the table above would meet the requirement of Section 35F of the Central Excise Act, 1944 read with Section 83 of the Finance Act, 1994 - Partial stay granted.

  ---

• 2014 (12) TMI 169
  

  C&F Agent services - Business Auxiliary Services - Export of services - Cargo Handling services & Storage & Warehousing Services - Whether the Distribution fee/ Agency fee, received by MIPL from their foreign principal is liable for payment of service tax under the category of Business Auxiliary Services - Whether the benefit of saving in Ocean freight passed on by the principal to them is chargeable to service tax under the category of Cargo Handling Service - Whether the amount received by them towards customs clearances, port clearances and transportation should be considered as taxable service under the single head of clearing and forwarding Agent - Held that:- a service which has not been consumed in India, cannot be taxed in India. - Services rendered by the appellant under ‘Commission Sales Agreement’ and Non-exclusive Distributor Agreement’, pertaining to Distribution Fee/ Agency Fee, have to be considered as export of services and no service tax is leviable on such export of services. Following decision of M/s. GAP International Sourcing (India) Private Limited vs. CST [2014 (3) TMI 696 - CESTAT NEW DELHI]

  Saving in Ocean Freight - Amount is given to the appellant by the foreign principal as an incentive out of the freight saved by the principal. There is no service involved as the goods, for which facilities of appellant are availed, belong to the appellant. charging service tax there has to be a service provider and a service recipient. One cannot be held to be a service provider to one s own self. On the same issue of the appellant for a subsequent period adjudicating authority has dropped the demand. In view of these observations appeal of the appellant with respect to service tax on amount received from the principal on saving in ocean freight is required to be allowed.

  Demand of service tax on other activities - composit contract or not - Held that:- There is no evidence that the contract were artificially splited to avoid service tax. As the services are separate and service recipient in future could avail the services of a service provider from a service provider other than the appellant, therefore, it can not be held that all the independent and separate contracts represent a common composite contract. - Decided in favour of assessee.

  ---

• 2014 (12) TMI 168
  

  Scientific or technical consultancy - transaction value as cum-tax value - High Court admitted appeal of assessee against the decision of Tribunal in [2011 (3) TMI 224 - CESTAT, MUMBAI] on following questions of law:-

  Whether the Tribunal was justified in holding that the services rendered by the assessee under the marketing assistance agreement dated 18-9-2001 as amended on 26-11-2001 constituted “Market Research Agency Services” covered under Section 65(105)(y) of the Finance Act, 1994 and accordingly confirm the demand of service tax raised by invoking the larger period of limitation.

  ---

• 2014 (12) TMI 166
  

  Waiver of pre-deposit - Revenue found that the appellants were rendering many other services on which they were not paying service tax - Valuation of services - Whether incentives and discounts will form part of value of services under Business Auxiliary Service - Held that:- In the case of consideration received for freight we are of the prima facie view that ocean freight was not liable to service tax. While there are specific entries in Finance Act, 1994 levying tax on transportation of goods by road, rail, aircraft, pipeline, etc., there is no entry levying tax on transportation by sea. It has to be reasonably presumed that this is kept outside the tax net and it cannot be taxed under a general entry like business support services. Further it appears that such services are rendered in respect of export cargo. It appears that the expression “aircraft operator” as defined in Finance Act, 1994 may cover any person who may not be having an aircraft also. But in the case of transportation of goods by air, there is an exemption under Notification 29/2005-S.T. for services rendered for transport of export goods by air. All these aspects are not considered while demanding tax on such charges.

  The deposits already made are sufficient for the purpose of Section 35F of Central Excise Act made applicable to appeals under Finance Act, 1994. So we grant waiver of pre-deposit of balance dues for admission of appeal.

  Appellant had not given adequate assistance to adjudicating authority in reconciling the figures appearing in the balance sheets and to explain the nature of services for which charges were being collected by them and also the charges which have been already included in the value of the services on which they have paid service tax. Since the applicants understand their accounts and returns better than the department it is their duty to explain the figures properly rather than argue that the Revenue has not been able to prove that consideration received is for non-taxable service or that on such consideration received tax has been paid under other heads. While making submissions for a fresh adjudication the appellant is directed to make full submissions in this regard. - Since there are basic flaws in the adjudication order as already pointed out and there is need for readjudication, we consider it proper to set aside the impugned order at this stage itself and remit the matter to the adjudicating authority for a fresh decision after hearing the appellant on all issues. - matter remanded back - Decided in favour of assessee.

  ---

• 2014 (12) TMI 165
  

  Waiver of pre deposit - CENVAT Credit - Capital goods - Use of pipeline system instead of pipes - Held that:- There are multiple questions of law which require examination in the appeals. We also notice that there are sizeable duty amounts arising out of the Tribunal’s judgment, even after deletion of penalty and denial of extended period to the Department. At the same time, we also notice that GSPL is a Government company. Therefore, at this stage the appellant-GSPL would deposit with the respondent, 50% of the duty demand arising out of the judgment of the Tribunal. Counsel far the GSPL pointed out that the respondent has not yet quantified such demand after the judgment of the Tribunal. This shall be done within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order. The appellant thereafter to make deposit as mentioned above within six weeks therefrom. Considering the fact that GSPL is a Government company, there shall be no further requirement of any security for remaining demand. - Decided partly in favour of assessee.

  ---

• 2014 (12) TMI 164
  

  Waiver of condition of pre-deposit - Non Co-operation with department and the plea sought to be raised for the first time before the Tribunal was neither taken before the adjudicating authority nor raised in the pleading - Held that:- Tribunal is required to deal with an application seeking waiver of pre-condition deposit of duty after recording its satisfaction relating to undispute hardship and the interest of revenue. The point of non co-operation before the adjudicating authority by no stretch of imagination can be considered for disposal of such application, it is a settled proposition of law that while considering an application seeking waiver of pre-condition deposit of duty, there must be a recording relating to a prima facie case, and unjust hardship taken into account the interest of the revenue. The order impugned before this Court is bereft of any such findings. The Tribunal have proceeded to dispose of the said application on extraneous consideration and, therefore, cannot be legally sustained. Accordingly the order impugned is quashed and set aside. - Matter remanded back - Decided in favour of assessee.

  ---

• 2014 (12) TMI 163
  

  Intellectual property service - Demand of interest as well as penalty under Section 76 on payment of service tax which was found later as not payable - Held that:- Service Tax in question is related to the year 1999 to 15-8-2002. The period in question is prior to 16-8-2002. Since the said period is prior to 16-8-2002, it is very clear that the respondent is not liable to pay Service Tax. Since the respondent is not liable to pay Service Tax, the respondent is also not liable to pay penalty as well as interest. The Commissioner (Appeals) as well as the Appellate Authority, after considering the date of amendment made to Service Tax Rules, 1994, have rightly rejected the claim of the appellant with regard to interest and penalty and also with regard to Service Tax. In the light of the discussion made earlier, this Court has not found any force in the contention put forth on the side of appellant and altogether, these Civil Miscellaneous Appeals are liable to be dismissed. - Decided against Revenue.

  ---

• 2014 (12) TMI 162
  

  Goods transport Agency Service - CENVAT Credit - High Court dismissed the appeal filed by the Revenue against the decision of CESTAT Chennai [2007 (11) TMI 92 - CESTAT, CHENNAI] since the issue is covered against the Revenue by reasons of the decision dated 5-7-2013 in C.M.A No. 2860 of 2008 as regards the utilisation of Cenvat credit towards payment of service tax on goods transport agency service.

  ---

• 2014 (12) TMI 127
  

  Maintainability of appeal - Classification of service - Real Estate Agent or Commercial and Industrial Construction services - Nature of amount received by the assessee as development charges - Withdrawal from work contract composition scheme - switching over from "Commercial or Industrial Construction Service" and "Construction of Complex Service" to "Works Contract Service" for the projects which were already under execution on 01.06.2007 - In-eligible benefit of abatement from the gross value - Benefit of Notification No.12/2003 - Held that:- The Tribunal, in the impugned order has held that the service rendered by the assessee does not get covered under the category of real estate agent services. Evidently, therefore, the dispute involved in the present case relates to whether the activity carried out by the assessee is a service within the meaning of such expression as defined under the Finance Act, 1994; or whether such service falls under the category of taxable service under sub-section (105) of section 65 of the Finance Act, 1994. Therefore, the controversy involved in the present case is a classification dispute which has a direct and proximate relation to the rate of service tax or the value of any service. Consequently, this court has no jurisdiction to adjudicate upon the said controversy.

  However, on behalf of the appellant, the learned counsel has submitted that the impugned order passed by the Tribunal is a non-reasoned and non-speaking order and as such, if the court considers the appeal to the limited extent of the above infirmities in the impugned order, no question of rate of duty or value of service would be required to be adjudicated and this court would be duly empowered to decide the same.

  On a plain reading of the impugned order passed by the Tribunal, it is apparent that the contention raised by the learned counsel for the appellant that the order passed by the Tribunal is a non-reasoned and non-speaking one and that merely after reproduction of the decision of this Court in the case of Sujal Developers (2011 (4) TMI 1023 - Gujarat High Court), the Tribunal has held that the issue involved in the present case is squarely covered by the said judgement, lacks merit and is contrary to the facts of the case. Under the circumstances, the submission that the impugned order suffers from the infirmity of being a nonspeaking and non-reasoned one, is not borne out from the record of the case.

  The contention advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant that the appeal be limited to the question as to whether the impugned order passed by the Tribunal is non-reasoned and nonspeaking one, does not merit acceptance.

  The issue involved in the present case has, therefore, a direct and proximate relation to the rate of service tax and the value of services and as such, this court lacks the jurisdiction to entertain this appeal and the appeal would lie before the Supreme Court under section 35L of the Central Excise Act, 1944. - Writ petition dismissed.

  ---

• 2014 (12) TMI 126
  

  Condonation of delay - Inordinate delay of 256 days - Delay in receipt of order - Held that:- The specific case of the petitioner is that he received the impugned order passed by the second respondent on 2-2-2011. Since in the order passed by the first respondent it is observed to the effect that the order passed by the second respondent has been received on behalf of assessee, this court is of the view that the reason given for dismissal by the first respondent cannot be accepted and further, no relevant document has been filed on the side of the respondent to the effect that the petitioner has received the order passed by the second respondent immediately after 24-2-2010. Therefore, viewing from any angle, the order passed by the first respondent is liable to be set aside and the substantial questions of law raised on the side of the appellant are having substance. - Delay condoned - Decided in favour of assessee.

  ---

1 ....8910111213141516........ 118