Home Case Index All Cases Service Tax 2022 2022 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 61 to 80 of 891 Records

• 2022 (12) TMI 467 - CESTAT MUMBAI
  

  Condonation of delay in filing appeal - power of Commissioner (Appeals) to condone the delay - sufficient reasons for not filing the appeal within prescribed time limit is shown or not - HELD THAT:- Reliance placed on the decision in the case of SINGH ENTERPRISES VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF C. EX., JAMSHEDPUR [2007 (12) TMI 11 - SUPREME COURT] where it was held that Commissioner and the High Court were therefore justified in holding that there was no power to condone the delay after the expiry of 30 days period.

  Thus there are no merits in the appeal filed by the appellant - Accordingly the appeal is dismissed under Rule 20 of CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982 for non-prosecution and also on merits following the Hon’ble Supreme Court decision in the case of Singh Enterprises.

  ---

• 2022 (12) TMI 466 - CESTAT NEW DELHI
  

  Classification of services - cargo handling service/mining service or not - whether the appellant had provided cargo handling service for the period 01.06.2007 and mining service for the period 01.06.2007 or had provided transport of goods by road service?

  HELD THAT:- The taxable service of mining under section 65 (105) (zzzy) of the Finance Act means any service provided or to be provided to any person by any other person, in relation to mining of mineral, oil or gas. The Commissioner has placed reliance upon the definition of mines under the Mines Act, 1952 and has observed that all processing including handling and movement of coal from one point of mines to dispatch point of mines are activities carried out in relation to mining of minerals.

  The issue as to was whether coal transported from pitheads of the mines to the railway sidings would fall within the taxable service defined under section 65 (105) (zzzy) of the Finance Act was examined by the Supreme Court in COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE AND SERVICE TAX, RAIPUR VERSUS SINGH TRANSPORTERS [2017 (7) TMI 494 - SUPREME COURT]. The Supreme Court held that the activity would appropriately be classified under the head transport of goods by road service and the activity does not involve any taxable service in relation to mining of mineral as contemplated under section 65(105) (zzzy) of the Finance Act. The Supreme Court also held that the definition of mines has no apparent nexus with the activity undertaken under the service rendered.

  It would be seen that the Supreme Court categorically held that the activity undertaken by the appellant would fall under the head transportation of goods by road service. The Commissioner (Appeals) was, therefore, not justified in holding that the appellant had undertaken the activity of mining service w.e.f. 01.06.2007.

  The appellant had, therefore, not provided “cargo handling” service prior to 01.06.2007 under section 65(23) of the Finance Act and mining service w.e.f. 01.06.2007. The order dated 04.11.2015 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), therefore, cannot be sustained - Appeal allowed.

  ---

• 2022 (12) TMI 465 - CESTAT NEW DELHI
  

  Liability of interest - whether the liability of interest under Section 75 survives, once it has been held that there is no demand of service tax for the period 2014-15? - Works Contract Service - HELD THAT:- Once it has been held that no service tax is payable for the financial year 2014-15, there can be no payment of interest under Section 75. Accordingly, this appeal is allowed and the impugned order is set aside.

  ---

• 2022 (12) TMI 312 - SC ORDER
  

  Classification of services - Cargo Handling Service or not - classifiable under "Cargo Handling Services under Section 65(105)(zr) read with Section 65(23) of the Finance Act, 1994 prior to 01.07.2012 and after 01.07.2012 under "Handling of Cargo" or under "Goods Transport Agency" under Section 65(105) (zzp) read with Section 65(50b) of the Finance Act, 1994 prior to 01.07.2012 and after 01.07.2012 under Section 65B(26) of the Finance Act, 1994?.

  HELD THAT:- Mr. N. Venkataraman, learned Additional Solicitor General, appearing for the Union of India, submits that in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case on record, the instant appeals may be dismissed leaving all questions of law open.

  Appeal disposed off.

  ---

• 2022 (12) TMI 311 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
  

  Condonation of inordinate delay - sufficient cause has been shown by the appellant for condonation of inordinate delay or not - HELD THAT:- It is not clear as to whether the appellant had placed the order passed by the Assistant Commissioner, Bidhannagar CGST & CX Division dated 10th April, 2019 accepting the classification as adopted by the appellant in respect of the specified services. In the order passed by the learned Tribunal dated 4^th February, 2021, there is no indication as regards the submission, which were made by the appellant.

  Though we do not fully approve of the conduct of the appellant in not pursuing the matter in a time bound manner, considering the fact that the present claim for refund is for the subsequent period, i.e., from October, 2008 to December, 2008, we are of the view that this aspect of the matter can be taken note of by the learned Tribunal while considering the application for condonation of delay - taking note of the peculiar facts and circumstances, we are inclined to interfere with the order passed by the learned Tribunal.

  Appeal allowed.

  ---

• 2022 (12) TMI 310 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
  

  Condonation of delay of 7 days has occurred in filling the restoration application - non-removal of office objections - HELD THAT:- In the totality of facts and circumstances, sufficient cause is made out to condone the delay of 7 days. Delay of 7 days iss condoned.

  Recall order - HELD THAT:- It is trite that the technicalities should not come in way in permitting the party to agitate the case on merits before the court of law. It would be proper that the applicant appellant is permitted to contest appeal on merits - Application allowed.

  ---

• 2022 (12) TMI 309 - CESTAT MUMBAI
  

  Taxability - activities undertaken on coal mined and before shipment to conform to size agreed upon in the contract of sale with their customers - overlapping for different areas of operation - section 65B(44) of Finance Act, 1994 - It is the main contention on behalf of appellant that the issue is covered by the decision of the Tribunal in COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE & SERVICE TAX VERSUS MAHANADI COALFIELDS LTD. [2017 (8) TMI 1625 - CESTAT KOLKATA], where it was held that In the instant case undisputedly, the appellant has paid the sales tax/vat, when it is so then crushing charges are not leviable. Regarding the payment of sales tax/vat, the Ld. Counsel for the appellant has shown proof to the Ld. Counsel for the Department.

  HELD THAT:- On perusal of the facts leading to the dispute and the findings in the impugned order, we do find the circumstances to be identical.

  Appeal allowed.

  ---

• 2022 (12) TMI 236 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
  

  Violation of principles of natural justice - petitioner was ready to pay the amount under SVLDR Scheme - respondent No.3 have proceeded to issue the impugned Communication rejecting the claim of the petitioner for the benefit under the SVLDR Scheme - non-speaking order - HELD THAT:- A perusal of the impugned Communication at Annexure – A will clearly indicate that the same is violative of principles of natural justice, in as much as no reason or sufficient opportunity was granted to the petitioner before issuing the said Communication. The impugned Communication is also unreasoned, non-speaking, laconic and cryptic order without any application of mind and consequently, on this ground alone, the impugned Communication deserves to be quashed. So also, a perusal of the impugned Communication will indicate that the same is contrary to the Circular dated 12.12.2019, issued regarding applicability and maintainability of the aforesaid SVLDR scheme.

  The impugned Communication at Annexure – A deserves to be quashed and necessary directions are to be issued to the respondents to grant the benefit of SVLDR Scheme in favour of the petitioner - Petition allowed.

  ---

• 2022 (12) TMI 235 - CESTAT MUMBAI
  

  Levy of equal amount of penalty u/s 78 of FA - availment of irregular CENVAT Credit was accepted by the appellant, the CENVAT Credit was reversed by them and the amount of interest was paid for such delayed reversal of credit - suppression of facts or not - HELD THAT:- In this case, both taking of CENVAT Credit and reversal thereof was within the knowledge of the Department, which is evident from the audit objection report issued to the appellant. It is an admitted fact on record that both the Service Tax along with interest was deposited by the appellant in the year 2016 and thereafter, show-cause proceedings were initiated against the appellant on 17.07.2018. Both the adjudication as well as the first appellate authority have not specifically discussed with the issue of involvement of the appellant in the fraudulent activities, concerning fraud, collusion, suppression of facts etc., with intent to evade payment of Service Tax.

  The proviso clause appended to Section 78 ibid cannot be invoked in the case of the appellant for imposition of penalty - Even otherwise also, the benefit provided under sub-section (3) of Section 73 ibid should be available to the appellant inasmuch as before issuance of show-cause notice, the appellant had deposited the disputed amount of Service Tax along with interest and also informed the Department regarding such payment. Hence, as per the mandates under statute, no action was required to be taken for imposition of penalty. Hence, on this count also, appellant’s case succeed on merit.

  Penalty set aside - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.

  ---

• 2022 (12) TMI 139 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
  

  CENVAT Credit - input services or not - construction of immovable properties - works contract services - Section 2(1)(ii) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 - HELD THAT:- An identical issue stands dealt with by a Division Bench of this Court in COMMISSIONER CENTRAL EXCISE COMMISSIONERATE, DELHI-III VERSUS M/S BELLSONICA AUTO COMPONENTS INDIA P. LTD. [2015 (7) TMI 930 - PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT] - In the aforesaid case the assessee had availed Cenvat credit for service tax paid on civil work of constructing a plant/factory in the premises, namely, the manufacturing plant and for rental of the immovable property leased by it on which the plant was erected.

  The dictum laid down in Bellsonica Auto Components India P. Ltd. would squarely apply in the facts of the present case as well.

  There are no patent infirmity in the findings returned by the Tribunal - appeal dismissed.

  ---

• 2022 (12) TMI 138 - CESTAT NEW DELHI
  

  Eligibility for benefit of abatement under N/N. 15/2004- S.T. dated 10.09.2004 as amended by N/N. 19/2005- S.T. dated 07.06.2005 and N/N. 01/2006-S.T. dated 01.03.2006 - Composite services or not - construction services - construction of commercial and industrial buildings - civil structure services - construction of complex services - services to the non-commercial concerns - time limitation - HELD THAT:- The services in question were actually the work contracts as stands under Section 65 (105)(zzzza) of Service Tax Act. Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of COMMISSIONER, CENTRAL EXCISE & CUSTOMS VERSUS M/S LARSEN & TOUBRO LTD. AND OTHERS [2015 (8) TMI 749 - SUPREME COURT], it was held that: “there was no charging section specifically, prior 01.07.2007, for levying service tax only on works contracts, and measure of tax with service element derived from gross amount charged for works contract less value of property in goods transferred in execution of works contract. Section 65(105)(g), 65 (105)(zzd), 65(105)(zzh), 65(105)(zzq) and 65(105)(zzzh) ibid were not sufficient for levying Service Tax on indivisible composite works contracts.

  Exemption notifications for impugned services were immaterial, and had to be disregarded, since levy itself of Service Tax was non-existent, no question of any exemption would arise. Hence, we are of the opinion that the question of demanding service tax on such contracts does not at all arises.” These findings are sufficient for us to hold that the entire demand for the period prior to July 2007 is liable to be set aside. For the period post July 2007, works contracts could be changed only under “Works Contract Service” [Section 65 (105) (zzzza)] and there is no demand under this head at all. Therefore, the demand for this period also cannot be confirmed.

  Extended period of limitation - HELD THAT:- The demands also need to be set aside for the reason that the revenue has failed to produce any evidence to prove a positive act on the part of the appellant to have an intent to evade the payment of tax. The appellant rather is a government undertaking being managed by the Government Officers itself, there can be no intent to evade its own revenue. The extended period is therefore held to have been wrongly invoked by the adjudicating authority below.

  Demand for normal period - HELD THAT:- The admissions/undisputed facts on record are sufficient to show that the appellant has not provided any service at all. The services were being provided by the sub-contractor appointed by the appellant. In the said circumstances, the service tax liability cannot be fastened upon the appellant that too for such services which were purely for non-commerce/industry purposes - the services in question are alleged to involve both supply of goods and services and hence cannot be changed under CICS at any rate.

  The entire demand is held to have wrongly been confirmed. Once the very basis of confirmation of demand goes, the question of legality of enhancement and question of competence to enhance thereof without affording opportunity of hearing to the appellant becomes redundant. Similarly the question of invoking Section 80 waiving off the penalties of Section 70, 76 and 77 of the Finance Act, 1994, becomes redundant. No purpose left anymore for remanding the matter.

  The order of imposition of duty has been set aside as being not warranted for services being rendered for non-commerce purpose and otherwise were not reduced by appellant, question of remanding the matter does not arise - Appeal disposed off.

  ---

• 2022 (12) TMI 137 - CESTAT MUMBAI
  

  Rejection of refund claim - non-availability of balance in cenvat credit - non-compliance with condition of debit of amount equivalent to refund claim in CENVAT credit account - rule 5 of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 - HELD THAT:- There is no doubt that the remand order takes note of the evidence furnished by the appellant to substantiate the claim of having complied with condition of debit of the CENVAT credit account by directing the original authority to scrutinise this submission once again. There is also no doubt that the lower authorities, in proceedings pursuant to the remand order, have come to the conclusion that not carrying forward the balance of credit in the returns pertaining to the said period is not sufficient for accepting the claim of the appellant that procedural requirements had been complied with. The provisions in the notification for operationalizing of rule 5 of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 include debiting of the claim amount before submission of application for the same. There is a purpose behind this mandate: that the claimed amount would be erased from the credit account and, thus, not utilised even temporarily once monetization has been sought.

  Ideally, credit should be reversed as and when export takes place; however, with eligibility for refund arising only upon receipt of proceeds of export and the scheme having provided for filing of claim within a year thereafter, the dilution of ideal by shift to the quarter in which the claim is preferred is acceptable approximation. Therefore, the submission of the appellant would meet the test of sufficiency only by evincing continuous availability of such balance from the date of filing of the claim for refund till the date on which the opening balance reflected write-off of the entire credit as claimed by them - the appellant is, squarely and singularly, responsible for failure to furnish proof of the required availability of credit till the date of write off and, in the absence of any such evidence even at this stage of appeal or even assurance of being ready and willing to do so, there is no scope for further ascertainment.

  The decision of the Tribunal in SILICON IMAGE INDIA RESEARCH & DEVELOPMENT PVT. LTD. AND ORS. VERSUS CCE & ST, HYDERABAD-IV AND ORS. [2017 (8) TMI 1686 - CESTAT HYDERABAD] and in BA CONTINUUM INDIA PVT. LTD. VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF SERVICE TAX-II, MUMBAI [2018 (6) TMI 1011 - CESTAT MUMBAI] have, no doubt, enumerated the principle that a rectifiable lapse in procedure should not lead to denial of refund but the outcome therein has been decided on the fact of post-claim rectification. While concurring with the principle, we find that, on the facts made known in this appeal, material presented before us does not support extending that outcome in this dispute.

  There are no reason to hold the impugned order as contrary to the terms of the remand ordered in the first round of appeal - appeal dismissed.

  ---

• 2022 (12) TMI 136 - CESTAT NEW DELHI
  

  Grant of proper interest under Section 35 FF of the Central Excise Act - calculation of interest from the date of deposit instead of 3 months after the order of the Tribunal or not - HELD THAT:- The order of the Court below is contrary to the provisions of Section 35 FF. The said Section provides for grant of interest from the date of deposit till the date of grant of refund. Accordingly, this appeal is allowed. The impugned order-in-appeal is set aside.

  Further, this Tribunal allowed the interest @12% per annum, following the ruling of the Division Bench in the case of Parle Agro Ltd. [2008 (3) TMI 67 - CESTAT NEW DELHI] - The Adjudicating Authority is directed to grant differential interest from the date of deposit till the date of refund within a period of 60 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order.

  Application disposed off.

  ---

• 2022 (12) TMI 96 - ORISSA HIGH COURT
  

  Maintainability of petition - availability of alternative remedy of appeal - time limitation - HELD THAT:- The Petitioner has not placed on record any material as to the date of receipt of order dated 16th December, 2021. In view of aforesaid sub-section (3A) of Section 85, the Petitioner was required to file Appeal within two months i.e., on or before 15^th February, 2021 and the condonable period was one month thereafter which lapsed on 15th March, 2021.

  This Court is not inclined to exercise the extraordinary jurisdiction vested under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Hence, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed.

  ---

• 2022 (12) TMI 95 - CESTAT NEW DELHI
  

  Levy of service tax - renting of immovable property service or not - services by way of renting out its immovable property of shops and buildings to various persons/firms/organizations for use in the course of furtherance of business of commerce - HELD THAT:- The issue as to whether the appellant would be liable for service tax under the category of “renting of immovable property‟ for the period prior to 01.07.2012 and after 01.07.2012 has been settled by the Supreme Court in a recent decision rendered in the case of the appellant in KRISHI UPAJ MANDI SAMITI, NEW MANDI YARD, ALWAR VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE AND SERVICE TAX, ALWAR [2022 (2) TMI 1113 - SUPREME COURT] and it has been held that it would be taxable prior to 01.07.2012 but would not be taxable w.e.f. 01.07.2012.

  The dispute in the present case is from 01.04.2012 to 31.3.2013. In view of the aforesaid decision of the Supreme Court service tax under the category of renting of immovable property could have been confirmed only for the period from 01.04.2012 up to 30.06.2012. However, no service tax could have been confirmed for the period from 01.07.2012 to 31.03.2013. The order passed by the Commissioner is accordingly modified to the extent indicated above.

  Appeal allowed in part.

  ---

• 2022 (12) TMI 94 - CESTAT NEW DELHI
  

  Classification of services - fees under the head Standard and Labelling (Registration and labelling Fees) and Processing Fee - whether the fees collected by the respondent was only for furtherance of the enforcement of the provisions of the Energy Conservation Act, 2001 and Bureau of Energy Efficiency (Particulars and Manners of their Display on Labels of Room Air Conditioners) Regulations, 2009? - HELD THAT:- It is not in dispute that the Tribunal in the case of the respondent itself, for the earlier period, allowed the appeal filed by the respondent in a matter where the same issue was involved - reliance placed in appellant own case BUREAU OF ENERGY EFFICIENCY VERSUS CST, DELHI [2018 (4) TMI 771 - CESTAT NEW DELHI] where it was held that The assessee- Appellants, acting in pursuance to the statutory regulations, collected statutorily fixed fee for such performance, cannot be subjected to Service Tax.

  The period involved in the matter decided earlier by the Tribunal related to the period 2008-09 to 2012-13, also included the negative list. The period involved in the present case is covered by the decision of the Tribunal.

  The Commissioner committed no illegality in dropping the proceedings - Appeal dismissed.

  ---

• 2022 (12) TMI 56 - CESTAT MUMBAI
  

  Refund of accumulated/unutilized Cenvat Credit of Service tax - services exported out of India - rejection of refund on the ground of being ineligible input services in terms of Rule 2(l) of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 being no nexus with the output services - Rule 5 of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 r/w Notification No.27/2012 -CE (NT) dated 18.6.2012 - period in dispute is October, 2016 to March, 2017 - HELD THAT:- In the matter of M/S BNP PARIBAS INDIA SOLUTION PVT LTD VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF CGST, MUMBAI EAST [2021 (12) TMI 676 - CESTAT MUMBAI] this Tribunal while allowing the appeal of the assessee therein allowed the refund claim u/s. 5 ibid by holding that since the provisions of Rule 14 ibid have not been complied with, the refund of Cenvat credit as claimed by the Appellant under Rule 5 ibid cannot be denied.

  It is settled legal position that in absence of any notice for recovery as provided by Rule 14 ibid the refund claimed by the assessee under Rule 5 cannot be denied.

  Now I will take the merits of the matter and it has already been held by this Tribunal in the matter of ACCELEYA KALE SOLUTIONS LTD. VERSUS COMMISSIONER, CGST, THANE [2018 (7) TMI 1217 - CESTAT MUMBAI] that in such cases the nexus between the input service used in export of service should not be insisted upon - also, the amended provisions of Rule 5 of the rules have also been clarified by the Tax Research Unit of Department of Revenue vide Circular dated 16.3.2012. It has been stated therein that the nexus between the input service used in export of service should not be insisted upon and the benefit of refund should be granted on the basis of ratio of export turnover to total turnover demonstrated by the assessee.

  The authorities below have erred in rejecting the refund claim of the appellant. Accordingly the impugned order is set aside - Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.

  ---

• 2022 (12) TMI 55 - CESTAT MUMBAI
  

  CENVAT Credit - availment of depreciation under Income Tax Act, 1961 was assailed as breach in common - failure to discharge tax liability earned for rendering of taxable service for the period from 1st April 2009 to 30th September 2009 for which section 73 of Finance Act, 1994 has been taken recourse to - HELD THAT:- The adjudicating authority has failed to consider the altered paradigm consequent upon notification of Point of Taxation Rules, 2011 by which the regime of taxation of receipts was substituted by taxation of accruals. The impugned order has also failed to take into consideration the liability discharged by the appellant; settled law on such compliance must be given effect to. The contention of the appellant that depreciation claimed earlier has since been revised and appropriate changes made in returns under Income Tax Act, 1961 should have been considered in the light of judicial decision without exceeding the jurisdictional competence of the adjudicating authority for insisting upon acceptance of the same by authorities empowered under that statute.

  The adjudicating authority is required to consider the evidence furnished by the appellant that duty liability having been discharged on ‘tippers’ sourced by them, as now placed on record, before concluding that the credit availed therein is ineligible.

  The impugned order is, thus, bereft of findings based on law, as enacted and judicially determined, applied to the facts put forth by the assessee and requires re-determination - matter remanded back to the original authority for fresh disposal of show cause notice after granting opportunity to assessee to make submissions on all issues.

  Appeal allowed by way of remand.

  ---

• 2022 (12) TMI 50 - CESTAT NEW DELHI
  

  Interpretation of the expression “true liability” in the first proviso to section 106 of the Finance Act, 1994 [the Finance Act] relating to Service Tax Voluntary Compliance Encouragement of the Finance Act Scheme 2013 - period April, 2012 to September, 2012 - HELD THAT:- It is under sub-section (1) of section 106 of the Finance Act that any person can declare his tax dues in respect of which no notice or an order of determination under section 73A has been issued or made before the first day of March, 2013. However, the first proviso provides that any person who has furnished return under section 70 and disclosed his true liability, but has not paid the disclosed amount of service tax or any part thereof shall not be eligible to make a declaration for the period covered by the said return. Thus, it is only in a case where a person has disclosed his true liability but has not paid the disclosed amount of service tax or any part thereof that a person would not be eligible to make a declaration for the period covered by the return. A person who claims that he has not disclosed his true liability in the return and has not paid the amount can, therefore, file a declaration under section 107(1) of the Finance Act. Some emphasis has to be placed to the word “true” occurring before “liability” in the first proviso to section 106 of the Finance Act - In the present case, as noticed above, the appellant claimed that it had not disclosed the true liability in the service tax return earlier filed for the period April, 2012 to September, 2012 and it is for this reason that the true liability was disclosed in the declaration filed by the appellant under section 107(1) of the Finance Act.

  The conclusion drawn by the Commissioner in the impugned order that since the amount of Rs. 64,67,773/- disclosed in the return was included in the amount of Rs. 66,98,098/- declared by the appellant, the appellant would not be justified in including this amount of Rs. 64,67,773/- in the declaration is apparently not in accordance with the provisions of section 106 of the Finance Act. If a true liability is disclosed subsequently by a person it is obvious that the amount earlier declared in the return would be included and it would not disentitle a person from including this amount in the declaration filed under section 106(1) of the Finance Act. There cannot be two amount towards tax dues.

  The appellant is clearly entitled to claim the entire amount of Rs. 01,051,31,384/- in the declaration filed under section 107(1) of the Finance Act and the view of the Commissioner to the contrary cannot be accepted - Appeal allowed.

  ---

• 2022 (12) TMI 12 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD
  

  Levy of service tax - Business Auxiliary Service or not - discount given by M/s. Maruti Suzuki India Ltd. to the appellant in connection with sale of vehicles which was further sold by the appellant on principal to principal basis - service charges or not - HELD THAT:- The fact is not under dispute that the appellant being a dealer purchase the vehicles from M/s. Maruti Suzuki India Ltd. and subsequently sell the same to various customers. The transaction between M/s. Maruti Suzuki India Ltd. and the dealer and subsequently sale transaction between the dealer and the customs are purely on principal to principal basis. The vehicle manufacturer M/s. Maruti Suzuki India Ltd. on the basis of yearly performance of sale grants the discount to the dealer, this discount is nothing but a discount in the sale value of the vehicle sold throughout the year therefore, these sales discount in the course of transaction of sale and purchase of the vehicles hence, the same cannot be considered as service for levy of service tax.

  From the judgment in M/S. ROHAN MOTORS LIMITED VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, DEHRADUN [2020 (12) TMI 1014 - CESTAT NEW DELHI] which has considered other decisions also, it was categorically held in the identical situation, the amount received as discount/incentive from the vehicle manufacturer by the appellant being the dealer is not liable to service tax.

  Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.

  ---

12345678........ 45