Home Case Index All Cases Service Tax 2018 2018 2018 (9) Service Tax - 2018 (9) 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 341 to 346 of 346 Records

• 2018 (9) TMI 32 - CESTAT ALLAHABAD
  

  Service or not? - appellant manufactured require tools in their factory and used the same for manufacture of final product to be exported to the General Electric Company USA - Held that:-There was no service involved in the present case and the amount received by the appellant to the tune of ₹ 58,02,925/- was used for development of tools and said tools were manufactured within the factory of appellant - there is no case for levy of service tax - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.

  ---

• 2018 (9) TMI 31 - CESTAT ALLAHABAD
  

  Levy of Service tax on U.P. Police - Security Agency Services - the appellant U.P. Police were providing Police Guard for escorting and handling of cash in transit and for deposits by the Banks in the currency chest for various Banks - Held that:- The services provided by appellant to various Banks was part of the statutory duty and therefore the same was not covered by provisions of Finance Act, 1994 related to Service Tax - Identical issue decided in the case of DY. INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF C. EX., BHOPAL [2017 (11) TMI 346 - CESTAT NEW DELHI], where it was held that the police department which is in the agency of State Government cannot be considered to be a person engaged in the business of running security services - Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.

  ---

• 2018 (9) TMI 30 - CESTAT ALLAHABAD
  

  Rent-a-Cab Service - appellants entered into an agreement with M/s Uttar Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation (UPSRTC) and provided buses owned by them for use by U.P.S.R.T.C. - Tribunal’s decision in the case of M/s S.K. Kareemun Vs Commissioner of Central Excise, Customs & Service Tax, Hyderabad-III [2015 (1) TMI 282 - CESTAT BANGALORE] relied upon where Demand of service tax confirmed for the period 1/6/2007 onwards.

  Held that:- The lower authorities did not have the benefit of final order passed by Tribunal in the case of M/s S.K. Kareemun - matter remanded to the Original Adjudicating Authority with direction to take into consideration the case law and decide the matter afresh - appeal allowed by way of remand.

  ---

• 2018 (9) TMI 29 - CESTAT ALLAHABAD
  

  Refund claim - N/N. 17/2007-ST dated 07.07.2009 as amended by N/N. 41/2012-ST dated 29.06.2012 - Original authority held that the shipping bill and commercial invoices were in the name of M/s.BRK Commodity India Ltd. and the application for refund was filed by M/s.KLA (I) Public Ltd. and therefore they were not admissible for refund - Held that:- A copy of fresh certificate of incorporation is available at page 37 of the appeal paper book and therefore it is undisputed fact that M/s.BRK Commodity India Ltd. and M/s.KLA India Public Ltd. are one and the same - refund cannot be rejected on the said ground that the documents were in the name of M/s. BRK Commodity India Ltd. and the refund application was filed by M/s.KLA India Public Ltd.. However, there is no report available on record about the requirement of conditions of said Notification having been satisfied in the present case.

  Matter remanded to the original authority to examine admissibility of the refund in terms of the conditions of the Notification under which refund claim was filed - appeal allowed by way of remand.

  ---

• 2018 (9) TMI 28 - CESTAT ALLAHABAD
  

  Principles of Natural Justice - case of appellant is that Revenue has added the transactions in respect of service and sale on which UPVAT was paid towards consideration for providing services as a result demand is not worked out on the basis of facts - Held that:- The impugned order is issued without following the principle of natural justice. Therefore, the same is not sustainable in law - the matter remanded back to the Original Authority with directions to offer an opportunity of personal hearing to the appellant - appeal allowed by way of remand.

  ---

• 2018 (9) TMI 27 - CESTAT ALLAHABAD
  

  Nature of activity - sale or service - Whether the transaction being transfer of right and privilege of export of sugar quota by the appellant on receipt of consideration is a service or sale of goods? - Held that:- Tribunal in the case of Commissioner of Central Excise & Service Tax, Meerut-I v. M/s. Bajaj Hindusthan Sugar Ltd. [2017 (10) TMI 1055 - CESTAT ALLAHABAD] has held that transaction question regarding the sale of right and privilege of export of sugar quota is sale of goods and no service element is involved - appellant has not provided any service therefore they are not liable to pay Service Tax - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.

  ---

1 ....1415161718