Home Case Index All Cases Service Tax 2016 2016 2016 (3) Service Tax - 2016 (3) 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

• 2016 (3) TMI 13 - CESTAT NEW DELHI
  

  Tour operator services - respondent had provided “Tour Operator” service to IFFCO is in-as-much-as, as per the contract entered with IFFCO, it transported the families and employees of IFFCO from one point to another at an agreed rate and in a luxury bus which had a permit issued under the Central Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 in relation to such vehicles. - Held that:- the definition of tour operators during the relevant period covered persons engaged in business of operating tours in a tourist vehicle having a permit under the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988. In the present case there is no doubt that the service was rendered using luxury bus which was having permit under the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 and the said bus was not a stage carriage but a contract carriage. Thus, the respondent provided tour operator service. Indeed the issue is squarely covered against the respondent by CESTAT judgement in the case of Friends Tour & Travels Vs. CCE Noida [2014 (1) TMI 44 - CESTAT NEW DELHI] wherein it was held that the activity of providing buses to LG Electronics for dropping of staff was covered under definition of tour and the assessee was covered under the definition of tour operator and was liable to pay service tax under Section 65 (105) (n) read with Section 65 (115) ibid. - Decided in favor of revenue.

  ---

• 2016 (3) TMI 12 - CESTAT BANGALORE
  

  GTA - reverse charge - export of goods - scope of exemption from payment of service tax in terms of Notification No.41/2007-ST - Held that:- if the exporter, who is also required to pay the service tax is the same person, then the exemption can be claimed by the said person himself. First paying service tax and immediately thereafter claiming refund of the same by the same person, i.e., exporter apart from creating a revenue-neutral situation, does not seem to be legislative intent. If the interpretation as given by the adjudicating authority is accepted, then the said proviso would become redundant and otiose inasmuch as the Revenues stand would be covered by the main clause of the Sl. No. 2(a) and there was no requirement to add the proviso. It is well settled law of interpretation that the interpretation which renders the provision of law otiose or redundant has to be avoided.

  As per the learned advocate, all the shipping bills for the period in question stand mentioned in the EXP2 and the adjudicating authority is also not disputing or denying the fact of export inasmuch as he has accepted the BRCs issued by the banks, thus establishing the fact of export. The adjudicating authority has not, in fact, examined the issue from the said angle and has also not examined the other documentary evidences available on record so as to establish the fact of export. We deem it fit to remand the said issue also to the Commissioner for fresh decision. - Decided in favor of assessee.

  ---

• 2016 (3) TMI 11 - CESTAT BANGALORE
  

  Confirmation of demand for unspecified service tax amount with interest thereon - it was argued that the show-cause notice did not specify the amount of tax payable at all and therefore the original adjudicating authority could not have confirmed the demand for any amount or appropriate any amount. - levy of of penalty - Held that:- The show-cause notice simply stated that October 2003 onwards, the appellant had not filed the returns at all. more over the show-cause notice did not even specify the amount payable by the appellant. According to provisions of Section 73(1) of Finance Act, 1994, whenever any service tax has not been paid or short paid, a notice has to be issued requiring the assessee to show-cause as to why he should not pay the amount specified in the notice. What is clear from the show-cause notice is that the show-cause notice speaks of non-filing of return from October 2003 and does not specify any amount to be paid by the assessee.

  It is a statutory requirement that amount to be paid has to be indicated in the show-cause notice and in the adjudication proceedings, the adjudicating authority is required to determine the amount payable as per the provisions of Section 73(2) of Finance Act, 1994. Therefore I find that the submission of learned counsel that confirmation of the demand or confirmation of the amount paid and appropriation thereto is totally incorrect and not valid is correct.

  The confirmation of demand, appropriation of the amount paid towards demand and interest and penalties under Section 76 and 78 of Finance Act, 1994 cannot be sustained. The only penalty that can be sustained is the amount of ₹ 3000/- imposed under Section 77 for non-submission of the returns. - Decided in favor of assessee.

  ---

• 2016 (3) TMI 10 - CESTAT MUMBAI
  

  Refund of service tax - Exemption on services provided to SEZ authorised operations - notification no. 40/2012 ST - 100% services are exported - Commissioner (Appeals) held that since the appellant have availed the Cenvat credit on specified services they have violated the condition provided under clause 2(g) of the Notification No. 40/2012-ST, therefore they are not entitled for the refund as provided under the said notification. - Held that:- since the appellant had reversed the credit even before making application of refund and under the admitted fact that same was not utilized by them it is considered as if Cenvat credit not availed and therefore condition provided under clause 2(g) of the Notification No. 40/2012-ST stand complied with. - However, interest from the date of taking credit till the date of reversal is applicable - Decided partly in favor of assessee.

  ---

1 ....45678