|
Advanced Search Options
Service Tax - Case Laws
Showing 1 to 20 of 124 Records
-
2020 (2) TMI 1711
Taxability - various payment of Foreign Currency made to related parties in abroad - HELD THAT:- The appellants claim is that all the payment made to the foreign related parties are not towards the service, therefore, the same is not taxable, however in support of this claim the appellant have not submitted any documents before the adjudicating authority. Now the appellant is in position to submit all the documents in support of their defense.
The impugned order is set aside and appeal is allowed by way of remand to the adjudicating authority for passing afresh order.
-
2020 (2) TMI 1697
Sabka Vishwas (Legacy Dispute Resolution) Scheme, 2019 - duty under the scheme already paid - appellant has not received Form-4 (the discharge certificate) - whether discharge certificate has been deemed issued to the appellant or not? - HELD THAT:- As per the scheme, the SVLDRS Form-3 if not issued to the appellant within a period of thirty days of filing of the declaration discharge certificate is required to be issued.
As per the records, the appellant has paid the amount in dispute. In that circumstances, SVLDRS-3 form has not been issued to the appellant, therefore, the designated authority was duty bound to issue discharge certificate within a period of thirty days of filing of the declaration which they failed to do so - the appellant has complied with the conditions of the scheme i.e. SVLDRS, 2019 and it is deemed that the discharge certificate has been issued to the appellant. In view of this, the appeal is disposed of as withdrawn under SVLDRS, 2019.
Appeal disposed off.
-
2020 (2) TMI 1683
Levy of service tax - Photography Services - digital offset printing - the activity was undertaken by the appellant, for which necessary soft copies of pictures, photographs and print material was provided by the clients - time limitation - HELD THAT:- In case of M/S. VENUS ALBUMS CO. PVT. LTD. VERSUS CCE, CHANDIGARH/LUDHIANA/AMRITSAR [2018 (11) TMI 754 - CESTAT CHANDIGARH] Chandigarh Bench has on the identical facts held that the activity undertaken by the appellant amounts to manufacture and classifiable the Chapter 4911, therefore, no service tax is payable by the appellant. In alternate, we hold that the activity undertaken by the appellant is exempted from payment of service tax. Therefore, no service tax is payable by the appellant.
Time Limitation - HELD THAT:- There are no reasons to differ with the decision of the Chandigarh Bench. Since we hold that the demand cannot be sustained on the merits, we are not going into the issue of limitation.
Since the demand of Service Tax itself cannot be sustained, demand of interest under Section 75 of Finance Act, 1994 and penalties imposed under Section 77 and 78 ibid to cannot be sustained and are set aside - appeal allowed.
-
2020 (2) TMI 1640
Levy of service tax - members club - mutuality of interest - HELD THAT:- The exact issue was before the Supreme Court in STATE OF WEST BENGAL & ORS. VERSUS CALCUTTA CLUB LIMITED AND CHIEF COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE AND SERVICE & ORS. VERSUS M/S. RANCHI CLUB LTD. [2019 (10) TMI 160 - SUPREME COURT] where it was held that from 2005 onwards, the Finance Act of 1994 does not purport to levy service tax on members’ clubs in the incorporated form.
Petition dismissed.
-
2020 (2) TMI 1628
Jurisdiction - power of Commissioner (Appeals) to sanction balance refund claim suo motu - Assistant Commissioner had not rejected the balance amount and has issued a separate show cause notice to the assessee - HELD THAT:- The Original Adjudicating Authority vide his first order sanctioned an amount of ₹ 2.53 crores approximately out of the total claim of refund of ₹ 22.75 crores approximately made by the assessee. This leads to evident conclusion that the balance refund claim stands rejected by him. In this scenario, the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) allowing the balance refund claim cannot be said to be out of the scope of the impugned order before him.
In any case the subsequent show cause notice also stands decided by the Assistant Commissioner vide his order dated 26/04/2019 sanctioning the refund claim. As such, at the most the objection raised by the Revenue is only of technical objection.
Appeal rejected - decided against Revenue.
-
2020 (2) TMI 1615
Recovery of service tax dues - Club and association services - doctrine of mutuality - service rendered during the period between 01.04.2015 to 31.03.2016 - Section 73(2) of the Finance Act, 1994 - HELD THAT:- The issue, as to whether the petitioner has liable to pay the service tax or not is now covered by a decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of STATE OF WEST BENGAL & ORS. VERSUS CALCUTTA CLUB LIMITED AND CHIEF COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE AND SERVICE & ORS. VERSUS M/S. RANCHI CLUB LTD. [2019 (10) TMI 160 - SUPREME COURT]. For earlier periods between 01.10.2008 and 31.01.2014 and between 01.02.2014 and 31.03.2015, an order has been passed by this Court in M/S OOTACAMUND CLUB VERSUS THE ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER, O/O. THE COMMISSIONER, CENTRAL EXCISE, CUSTOMS & SERVICE TAX [2020 (1) TMI 198 - MADRAS HIGH COURT] following the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of West Bengal and others Vs Calcutta Club Ltd and Chief Commissioner of Central Excise and Service Tax and Another Vs Ranchi Club Ltd. - it was held that from 2005 onwards, the Finance Act of 1994 does not purport to levy service tax on members’ clubs in the incorporated form.
Petition allowed.
-
2020 (2) TMI 1531
Principles of natural justice - ex-parte order - grievance of the appellant is that the scrutiny was not proper - HELD THAT:- Inasmuch as there was no verification and examination of the work orders awarded to the appellant by the Adjudicating Authority, the examination of the same by Commissioner (Appeals) may not be proper - matter remanded to Assistant Commissioner for fresh decision after giving an opportunity to the appellants to put forth their case.
-
2020 (2) TMI 1517
Permission for withdrawal of appeal - Sabka Vishwas (Legacy Dispute Resolution) Scheme, 2019 in terms of section 125 of Finance Act, 2019 - circular no. 107/36/06/2019-CX issued dated 29th October 2019 of Central Board of Indirect Taxes & Customs - HELD THAT:- The application is allowed and the appeal is dismissed as withdrawn.
-
2020 (2) TMI 1493
Classification of services - Banking and Financial Services or not - collection of fund amount from Coal Companies and the Coal Mine Workers and invest them in various Banks and Securities so as to ensure a good return and pay provident fund, pension, etc., to the Coal Mine Workers - extended period of limitation - interest - penalty - HELD THAT:- There are little force in the arguments of the appellant that they are not a Body Corporate, but a Government Department performing some functions because the very Act which created them and entrusted them with the power states that they are a Body Corporate. Section 3B of the CMPFMP Act,1948, specifically mentions that the appellant is a Body Corporate.
Whether the appellant is covered by the definition of Banking and Finance Services? - HELD THAT:- As can be seen from the definition asset management including portfolio management, all forms of fund management, pension fund management, custodial, depository and trust services, are squarely covered by the definition of “banking and financial services”. The appellant’s organization functions under Board of trustees and under Section 3A of the Act it is a Body Corporate. Their responsibilities as evident from the submissions of the appellants themselves are nothing but funds management, for which they received service charges of @3% from the Coal Companies. Therefore, the appellant is squarely covered by the definition of “Banking and Financial services” and therefore, is liable to pay service tax under this Heading.
Whether the appellants are performing services to the country? - HELD THAT:- Evidently, they are not performing any sovereign functions of the State. They are managing the some funds and performing some functions for the workers of Coal Companies and are getting paid for such services. These services rendered by the appellants, are not like the services of RTO of issuing driving license after charging a fees for the purpose or the State Drugs control who issues license for manufacture of pharmaceuticals after charging the requisite fees both of which are sovereign functions of the State. The appellant’s functions are akin to the activities of other commercial organizations owned by the Government, such as, Public Sector Undertakings, Public Sector Banks etc.. In all such organizations, while the nature of their activity is commercial, being owned by the Government, their business is so conducted to take in to account some social objectives and goals. This, by itself, will not make their activities sovereign functions or get them exempted from the tax.
Once the Parliament has passed an Act imposing tax in a particular way that cannot be wished away by the appellant claiming noble objectives of their organization. Once a law is passed, it must be implemented as it is drafted without any intendment - the appellant is liable to pay service tax.
Extended period of limitation - HELD THAT:- In this case, the appellant has not applied for service tax registration or paid service tax. There is nothing on record to show that the appellant had written to the Department intimating their activities and seeking to know if they are liable to pay service tax. On the other hand, when their activities were detected during Audit and the Department had written several letters and reminders, only then they obtained service tax registration. Even after obtaining the service tax registration, they have not paid the service tax nor filed any returns. This conduct of the appellant does not show their bonafides - It is the organization which has demonstrably evaded the tax to profit. It cannot now profit from its own wrong and escape tax liability - the invocation of extended period of limitation is fully justified in this case.
Interest under Section 75 - HELD THAT:- As the interest under Section 75, is directly linked to the payment of duty, the interest must accordingly be paid by the appellant.
Penalties - HELD THAT:- There are nothing inconsistent or wrong in the impugned order imposing statutory penalties under Sections 78,77 & 76 of the Finance Act, 1994, since the appellant has made every possible effort to knowingly evade tax.
Appeal dismissed - decided against appellant.
-
2020 (2) TMI 1476
Principles of natural justice - appeal rejected as time-barred, without passing any order on merits - HELD THAT:- There is no discussion or finding on merits by the First Appellate Authority. We also find it to be very strange as to how the First Appellate Authority has recorded as to having ‘seen’ that the appellant had received the Order-in-Original on 11.11.2014, which is nobody’s case.
The stand of the Revenue that the appellant has received the Order-in-Original, based on the endorsement of the postal authorities, is not helping us in any way but rather is creating more confusion. The date of despatch as per the above is 15.11.2014, but the date of receipt is 13.11.2014! In view of this and on an overall analysis of the submissions of both the parties and the documents placed by either side, it is clear to us that the Revenue has not been able to establish the date of receipt by the recipient and hence, we have no choice but to go with the contentions of the assessee as regards receipt of the order is concerned. What emerges by this is that the first appeal filed by the assessee before the First Appellate Authority is within the prescribed period of limitation.
The appellant should not suffer for no fault on its part and hence, it is deemed proper to set aside the impugned order with a direction to the First Appellate Authority to pass a fresh order on merits after hearing the appellant and following the principles of natural justice - appeal partly allowed, by way of remand.
-
2020 (2) TMI 1450
Nature of Activity - service or manufacture - Business Auxiliary Services or not - case of the appellant is that the processing charges received by it is not liable to be taxed under the category ‘Business Auxiliary Service’ as the process undertaken by it amounts to manufacture? - HELD THAT:- This Tribunal in similar facts held that process undertaken by the appellant amounts to manufacture as defined in Section 2(f) of the Central Excise Act. This is also the intent in Chapter Note 3 to Chapter Note 16 of the Tariff. We find that this note has been in the Chapter 16, both in the earlier 2005 Tariff and also in the subsequent to 2012-2016 Tariffs.
Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.
-
2020 (2) TMI 1449
Nature of Activity - manufacture or service - Process amounting to manufacture or not - activity of conversion of various spices into powder form out of the raw material supplied - Business Auxiliary services or not - divergent views - HELD THAT:- As there are contrary decisions of this Tribunal, therefore it would be in the interest of justice to refer the matter to Larger Bench of this Tribunal to decide the following issue :
(a) Whether the activity of crushing, pulverising, converting and packing of spices into powder form amount to manufacture or not?
(b) If not, whether service tax is payable under the category of ‘Business Auxiliary Services’ or not?
The Registry is directed to place the matter before the Hon’ble President to examine the issue for constituting Larger Bench to decide the issue.
-
2020 (2) TMI 1447
Classification of services - Erection, Commissioning or Installation service or not - services in relation to transmission or distribution of electricity through transmission towers, Lines and Erection, Commission or Installation or various capacity Electrical Sub-stations, Lines, Transformers - HELD THAT:- On examination of the contracts awarded by M/s. TNEB and M/s. KSEB to the appellant, it transpires that the scope of work is in connection with transmission and distribution of electricity. In exercise of the powers conferred by Section 11C of the Central Excise Act, 1944 read with Section 83 of the Finance Act, 1994, the Central Government vide Notification No. 45/2010-S.T., dated 20-7-2010 has directed that the service tax payable on transmission and distribution of electricity provided by the service provider, which was not been levied, shall not be required to be paid in respect of the taxable service under the category of Erection, Commissioning or Installation.
Non-payment of service tax was provided under the said notification with retrospective effect. Since, the period of dispute involved in this case is from 2004-05 to 2007-08; the benefit of exemption provided under the said notification should be available to the appellant - there are no merits in the impugned order - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.
-
2020 (2) TMI 1446
Nature of activity - service or not - reduction of prices in vehicles, effective for purchase by the ultimate customers - Business Auxiliary service or not - HELD THAT:- The transaction between the appellant and M/s. Honda Siel Cars Ltd. is of sale and purchase of vehicle and due to the mandate of deciding the sales price of vehicle to ultimate customers, appellant had to sell vehicle at the price lower than the price at which they had purchased the said goods and as a discount for doing the same, appellant received the aforesaid amount - thus, the said amount has to be treated as discount and also that element of service is not involved.
The Service Tax of around ₹ 10 lakhs demanded from the appellant is not sustainable - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.
-
2020 (2) TMI 1441
Non-payment of service tax - storage & warehousing service - wrongly utilized Cenvat credit of input services consumed in exempted output services for payment of service tax on dutiable output services - demand of interest and penalty.
Demand of service tax under the head ‘Storage and Warehousing Services’ - HELD THAT:- There are no force in the argument of the Ld. Counsel that Soya Bean Meal is an agricultural produce. It is true that soya bean is an agricultural produce but once the soya beans reach the oil mill, they extract soya oil and what is left over is the soya bean meal. Soya oil and soya bean meal are two products of the oil extraction industry. It cannot be said that soya bean meal is an agricultural produce just as a cotton fabric or a cotton garment cannot be called as an agricultural produce simply by virtue of the fact that cotton which is the initial raw material was a crop. Similarly, articles of steel or even refrigerators etc. are made up with metal which had originally come out as a product of mining of the ore. For that reason, all these cars, washing machines, refrigerators etc. do not become products of mining. Otherwise, everything that we use must be classified as a product of agriculture or mining or forests which is absurd. What is relevant is that activity which produces the goods in question which in this case is the oil mill. As far as the payment in question is concerned, the demand is on the entire amount which the appellant has received under the agreements - the appellant is also getting paid a separate amount for storage in their godown from their clients apart from the amounts which they receive for the stevedoring services. This is confined to cargo stored beyond a certain period. Undoubtedly, such service is in the nature of storage and warehousing service and is chargeable to service tax as such. In our considered view, the demand on the appellant has to be restricted to the extent the amounts which they have received towards godown rents separately for storage over and above the normal stevedoring charges.
The appellant is not liable to pay service tax under “Storage & Warehousing Services” on the service charges which they have received for stevedoring/cargo handling - They are liable to pay service tax on storage and warehousing charges of any amount received on account of storage of goods by warehousing charges ground rent or any type of rent, etc. - appellant is liable to pay interest as applicable.
Recovery of Cenvat credit wrongly utilized - HELD THAT:- It is found that Rule 6(3)(c) as it stood during the relevant period prohibited utilization of Cenvat credit in excess of 20% but did not forbid availment of Cenvat credit. After 1-4-2008, when Rule 6(3)(c) was amended, the accumulated Cenvat credit did not lapse as there was no provision to that effect in the amended rules. Nothing stopped the appellant from utilizing the Cenvat credit post 1-4-2008. Therefore, the appellants have utilized Cenvat credit to the extent of 80% well before they were entitled to do so. At this point of time, since more than a decade has passed, post 1-4-2008, it does not make any difference whether they had utilized the Cenvat credit to the extent of 80% prior to 1-4-2008 or post this date - the demand on this accounts needs to be dropped.
All penalties are set aside.
Appeal allowed in part.
-
2020 (2) TMI 1440
Condonation of delay of 3666 days in filing the present appeal - appellant submitted that there is no intentional delay in filing the appeal because for the subsequent period the appeal is still pending before the Tribunal and in respect of another period the appeal has been allowed also - HELD THAT:- Admittedly the appeal was filed after an inordinate delay of 3666 days. The reasons given for such a long delay are that the officer who was dealing with the legal affairs has since resigned. Further the appellant engaged an Advocate Shri Frankur D. Jayan whom all the papers were handed over along with his fees and the said Advocate prepared the draft of the appeal. The said draft prepared by the Shri Frankur D. Jayan has also been filed on record, which shows that the appeal was drafted by the said Advocate but the same was not filed in the Tribunal - in the present case there is no deliberate and intentional delay on the part of the appellant because for the subsequent period the appellant has filed the appeal which is still pending and had they knew about the non-filing the earlier appeal they would have filed the same also. Further, it is a settled law that the assessee should not suffer on account of the mistake of the Advocate.
Admittedly there is negligence on the part of the appellant to follow up the matter with concerned Advocate. For their negligence we can impose cost on them but dismissing the appeal would cause irreparable loss and hardship to the appellant - the delay is condoned subject to payment of cost of ₹ 30,000/- - application allowed.
-
2020 (2) TMI 1396
Commercial or Industrial Construction Service - composite contract wherein construction has been made by the appellant for Government organizations - period prior to 01.06.2007 - Construction for Indian Navy, being flats construction for their personnel (MAP) - Demand as regards construction to Seawood apartments - Penalties.
Commercial or Industrial Construction Service - composite contract wherein construction has been made by the appellant for Government organizations - period prior to 01.06.2007 - HELD THAT:- This issue is settled in favour of the appellant as the Hon’ble Supreme Court in COMMISSIONER, CENTRAL EXCISE & CUSTOMS VERSUS M/S LARSEN & TOUBRO LTD. AND OTHERS [2015 (8) TMI 749 - SUPREME COURT] has held that a composite contract is works contract service w.e.f. 01/06/2007 - also, there is no proposal by the Revenue to classify the said activity under Works Contract Service. Thus, prior to 01.06.2007, the activity is not taxable.
Construction for Indian Navy, being flats construction for their personnel (MAP) - HELD THAT:- As such flats / apartments were not made for sale and construction is for one principal (the Ministry of Defence), the same is held to be not taxable in view of the law as clarified by the Board vide Instructions F.No.137/12/2006-CX.4 dt. 29/01/2009 (Circular No.108/2/2009- ST).
Demand as regards construction to Seawood apartments - HELD THAT:- The appellant is not entitled for the 67% abatement under the said notification. However, the appellant is entitled to deduction of material component actually used by them in construction of the projects - Seawood Apartment. Appellant have also submitted that they are registered under the provisions of State VAT and they have maintained proper accounts of the material used in the project - Accordingly, this issue is remanded to the file of the original adjudicating authority to allow abatement or deduction of actual quantity/amount of material used in the construction, as per the records of the appellant. Appellant is also directed to produce the calculation of such material used by them along with the Chartered Accountant certificate and shall also produce other relevant records like VAT assessment order, etc. as required for proper determination - matter remanded only for the purpose of requantification of service tax in respect of Seawood Apartment only.
Penalties - HELD THAT:- All penalties are accordingly set aside.
Appeal allowed in part and part matter on remand.
-
2020 (2) TMI 1394
Non-payment pf service tax - Outdoor Caterer Service - appellant did not collect the service tax from the client and also did not deposit the same into the government exchequer - October 2013 to March 2016 - exemption vide Entry No. 19A in the Notification No. 25/2002 – ST dated 20.06.2012 - HELD THAT:- The taxable service in relation to provision of ‘Outdoor Caterer’ is defined under Section 65 (76a) read with Section 65 (105) (zzt) of the Finance Act, 1994 and was attracting payment of service tax on the provision of such service. However, in exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (1) of the Section 93 ibid, the Central Government vide Entry No. 19 in the Notification No. 25/2002 – ST dated 20.06.2012 has exempted the “Services provided in relation to serving of food or beverages by a restaurant, eating joint or a mess, other than those having the facility of air-conditioning or central air-heating in any part of the establishment, at any time during the year”. The said notification was amended vide Notification No. 14/2013-ST dated 22.10.2013, in inserting ‘Entry no. 19A’ in the base notification - On reading of entry 19A in the notification dated 22.10.2013, it reveals that the canteen maintained in a factory has been provided with the exemption from payment of service tax. The said notification nowhere specified that canteen maintained by or run by the factory can only be considered for the benefit of such exemption. Thus, irrespective of the person, who maintains the canteen in a factory, the service tax exemption as per Entry 19A is available to such person and the benefit cannot be restricted to the owner of the factory alone.
In the present case, since the appellant had provided the services of serving food and maintaining the canteen located in the factory, belonging to M/s. Ceat Ltd., the benefit of service tax exemption as per the above referred notification should be available to it.
Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.
-
2020 (2) TMI 1392
Non-payment of Service Tax - Maintenance & Repair Service - Business Support Service - Management Consultancy Services - Business Auxiliary Services - it appeared to Revenue that appellant had not discharged their service tax properly.
Maintenance and Repair Service relating to software - HELD THAT:- The issue is no longer res integra and the said issue was decided in appellant’s own case by coordinate Bench of this Tribunal, reported as M/S SAP INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED VERSUS CCE, BANGALORE-III [2010 (9) TMI 289 - CESTAT, BANGALORE] wherein the issue was whether the software maintenance was taxable under the head Management, Maintenance and Repair Service under Service Tax Provisions, as information technology support services was introduced w.e.f. 16/05/2008. Further there was amendment in the maintenance or repair services w.e.f. 01/06/2007, clarifying that goods are inclusive of computer software and including maintenance or repair of information technology software.
Business Support Services - Appellant submits that it is with respect to using of dedicated leased line provided by the overseas service provider - HELD THAT:- This issue is also settled in favour of the appellant as has been held by co-ordinate Bench in TCS E-SERVE LTD. VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF SERVICE TAX, MUMBAI [2014 (6) TMI 655 - CESTAT MUMBAI], that for eligibility, the service provider has to be a ‘Telegraph Authority’ as defined in Section 65(105)(zzzx) of the Finance Act. Further as per CBEC instructions F.No.137/21/2011 dt. 15/07/2011, the service tax shall not be payable where service is provided by foreign vendor and such foreign vendor is not the ‘Telegraph Authority’ under the Indian Telegraph Act.
Management consultancy services - issue is in respect of implementation of ‘Enterprise Resource Planning’ (ERP) - Case of appellant is that such activity of the ERP falls under ‘Consulting Engineering Services’ and further ‘Software Engineering Consultancy’ is exempted from the purview of service tax - HELD THAT:- The said issue has also been considered by the Tribunal in the case of IBM INDIA PVT. LTD. VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF SERVICE TAX, BANGALORE [2009 (4) TMI 314 - CESTAT, BANGALORE] wherein it was observed that ERP implementation service is definitely for use in furtherance of business and commerce and the service is for implementation. Such implementation of ERP service is specifically covered under clause (iii) in the definition of ITSS, where it is provided that – (iii) adaptation, upgradation, enhancement, implementation and other similar services related to information technology software. Although in appeal No.ST/1881/2011, the period falls partly before and after 16/05/2000, however, there is no proposal to levy tax under the head ITSS, we hold that the appellants are not liable to pay service tax under the ‘Management Consultancy Services’ - decided in favor of appellant.
Engagement of overseas agency by the appellant for advertising and sales promotion outside India (Srilanka and Bangladesh) - HELD THAT:- This Tribunal in the case of Genom Biotech Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CCE&C, Nashik [2016(42) STR 918 (Tri. Mum.)] has held that the assessee had availed advertising agency services through overseas service providers for providing advertisement and sales promotion service in the territory of Ukraine, the appellant M/s. Genom Biotech was manufacturers of trucks which was exported to Ukraine. Under such circumstances, this Tribunal held that the services that are not connected with the manufacture or with the transport of goods till the customs frontier of the country, can be disassociated from use within the country and hence would not lie within the ambit of legal fiction of import of services.
Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.
-
2020 (2) TMI 1377
Information Technology Software Services - Anti-virus software provided in a CD or through direct downloads - demand of service tax alongwith interest and penalty - periods May 2008 to June 2009, July 2009 to March 2010 and April 2010 to March 2011 - HELD THAT:- The Tribunal in QUICK HEAL TECHNOLOGIES LIMITED VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF SERVICE TAX, DELHI [2020 (1) TMI 430 - CESTAT NEW DELHI] has held that the sale of Antivirus Software or updates thereof is sale of goods and that the activity does not attract levy of service tax under ITSS. Further, the appellant has discharged VAT on the amounts received by sale of Anti-virus software. Needless to say that VAT and Service Tax are mutually exclusive.
Demand of service tax on the very same amount is against the settled position of law - Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.
........
|
