Case Laws |
Home Case Index All Cases Service Tax 2020 2020 2020 (2) Service Tax - 2020 (2) This
|
Advanced Search Options
Service Tax - Case Laws
Showing 121 to 124 of 124 Records
-
2020 (2) TMI 40 - CESTAT NEW DELHI
Levy of service tax - construction of Railway siding for private parties - extended period of limitation - HELD THAT:- Reliance placed in the case of KVR RAIL INFRA PROJECTS PVT. LTD. VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL TAX, SECUNDERABAD G.S.T. [2019 (5) TMI 376 - CESTAT HYDERABAD] where it was held that Section 65(25b) or Section 65(105)(zzzza) of the Finance Act, 1994 does not use the word ‘railways’ for public carriage or that the railways should be government railways. The definition uses the words “railways” only. Therefore, the execution cannot be restricted to the government railways which are used for public transport of passengers or goods.
It is further urged that no words can be added while interpreting a notification and when the language is clear and as per the Literal Rule of Interpretation of statutes; Even the inclusive definition of the term ‘railway’ is taken from the Railway Act, the exemption is provided to Railways and not to railway alone and hence private railway siding is also exempted.
Time Limitation - HELD THAT:- The audit objection was raised on 26.03.2012 on some different grounds to which reply was filed by the appellant on 10.05.2012. Show cause notice was issued after two years on 11.04.2014, thus, is barred by limitation - In the second appeal, for the period ending April, 2014, the show cause notice is not time barred.
Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.
-
2020 (2) TMI 39 - CESTAT CHENNAI
Refund claim - Section 11 B of the Central Excise Act, 1944 - procedural lapse - allegation of non-compliance with the condition 2 (h) of Notification No. 27/2012 CE (N.T) dated 18.06.2012 - CBEC Circular No. 1063/2/2018-CX dated 16.02.2018 - HELD THAT:- Since there is no finding by both the lower authorities on the debit entries effected by the appellant, matter requires re-adjudication because, it is for this reason that prompted the issuance of SCN which carried the allegation of non-compliance with the condition No. 2(h). If the debit/reversal of Cenvat Credit is effected, then it may amount to complying with the condition at 2 (h) of Notification ibid. But however, from the date of passing the Order-in-Original and Order-in-Appeal vis-à-vis the debit/reversal of Cenvat Credit, it appears that the Adjudicating Authority did not have the benefit of this documentary evidence.
Matters are remanded back to the original authority to look into and verify the debit of Cenvat Credit and call for such other details in this regard, if required, and then pass a speaking order - appeal allowed by way of remand.
-
2020 (2) TMI 38 - CESTAT HYDERABAD
Principles of natural justice - recovery invoking Rule 14 and not Rule 6(3A) clause (e) - HELD THAT:- It is not in dispute that the appellant had wrongly availed CENVAT Credit and has been pointed out for reversing the same. The entire amount has been reversed by the appellant and the same has been confirmed and appropriated in the demand by the original authority. He also imposed penalty which has been set aside by the first appellate authority. The Department has not contested waiver of the penalty.
The interest is evidently and explicitly payable under Rule 6(3A) clause (e) read with Rule 14 of CCR 2004. The interest has indeed been demanded under Rule 14 of CCR 2004. Merely because they have also not mentioned Rule 6(3A) in the Show Cause Notice, it does not vitiate the entire demand of interest.
The first appellate authority has given the appellant adequate opportunity to explain as to why they are not liable to be paid interest - appeal dismissed - decided against appellant.
-
2020 (2) TMI 37 - CESTAT ALLAHABAD
Construction of Residential Complex Service - Abatement claim - charges collected from the buyers under ‘electric meter main load supply charges’ head - HELD THAT:- Sub-Section 3 of Section 66F of Finance Act, 1994 provides that taxability of a bundled service shall be determined if various elements of such services are naturally bundled in the ordinary course of the business. From the submissions made recorded herein above it is clear that around ₹ 16 lakhs charges for electric meter main load supply were collected along with the consideration for sale of residential unit and they were collected from very person to whom the residential unit was sold and not to any other person and as explained the same was for providing electricity supply during the power failure to the residents of the complex. Therefore, the said service is bundled services under Section 66F of the Finance Act, 1994.
The appellant has paid around ₹ 49 thousand along with interest which is appropriate amount after taking into consideration the abatement admissible - thus, without interfering with the service tax of around ₹ 49 thousand along with interest paid, the remaining part of the order is set aside - appeal allowed in part.
....
|
|