Law	-- All -- GST Income Tax Benami Property/ Transactions 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 Tribunal Appellate authority for Advance Ruling Advance Ruling Authority ANTI-PROFITEERING AUTHORITY Commission Central Government Board DISTRICT/ SESSIONS Court Commissioner / Appellate Authority Other
Citation	--Year-- 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 - Central Government - Case Laws

Showing 1 to 12 of 12 Records

More information of case laws are visible to the Subscriber of a package i.e:-
Party Name, Court Name, Date of Decision, Full Text of Headnote & Decision etc.

• 2018 (12) TMI 1800
  
  Rebate of Service Tax - export of services - case of respondent is that service tax is not leviable on export of services under Section 66B read with Section 66C of the Finance Act, 1994 and any amount collected without authority of law cannot be retained by the Government in terms of Article 265 of the Constitution of India - Section 11B of the Central Excise Act - HELD THAT:- The Commissioner (Appeals) has allowed the respondent’s appeal vide aforesaid OIA by accepting the fact that the respondent was not required to pay any service tax on the exported services and the refund of service tax wrongly paid on the exported services is admissible under Section 11B of the Central Excise Act. This legal postulation that the respondent was not required to pay any service tax on the exported services is not questioned by the applicant also....... + More

---

• 2018 (8) TMI 1404
  
  Rebate of Service Tax - N/N. 41/2012-S.T. - denial of rebate on the ground that it is not technically possible at this point of time as the electronic Shipping Bills have been filed by the respondent and once the electronic Shipping Bills are filed by the respondent without declaration as per Para 2(d) of the N/N. 41/2012-S.T., dated 29-62012, the refund cannot be filed or sanctioned. Held that:- While the rebate of Service Tax under Para 3 is normally rejectable for noncompliance of the condition stipulated in Proviso (c) of Notification No. 41/2012S.T. when the exporter is in a position to exercise either of the two options freely and effectively, the Government is of the considered view that the said condition in Proviso (c) is not meant for rejection of the rebate claim of the exporter when they were not having the option to file reba....... + More

---

• 2018 (4) TMI 1659
  
  Rebate of service tax - export of services - rejection on the ground that the applicant did not file a declaration under Para 3.1 of Notification No. 12/2005-S.T., dated 19-4-2005 prior to export of services - whether the rebate of service tax can be denied to the applicant for non-filing of declaration with the jurisdictional Assistant/Deputy Commissioner prior to export of taxable service? - Held that:- From the facts, it is evident that earlier the jurisdictional authorities themselves did not consider prior filing of the declaration as mandatory and by sanctioning all earlier claims the respondent was given a belief that the declaration could be filed even subsequently. Therefore, for non-filing the declaration prior to export of service, the respondent cannot be blamed entirely. Moreover, the objective of Notification No. 12/2005-S.T....... + More

---

• 2018 (3) TMI 1729
  
  Rebate claim - service tax paid on railway freight services used in relation to export of Phospho Gypsum and Gypsum made - rejection on the ground that since the applicant had already recovered freight charges and the service tax paid thereon from its foreign buyers, sanctioning of rebate would entail double benefit to the applicant which is contrary to the provisions of law and M/s. Paradeep Phosphate, who had paid service tax on rail freight, had not given any NOC to the applicant for getting rebate of tax - Held that:- M/s. Paradeep Phosphate Ltd. does not have any objection with the rebate claim filed by the applicant in this case. Even otherwise M/s. Paradeep Phosphate have not claimed any rebate against the service tax paid on the exported goods. The Government finds that the principle of unjust enrichment is not applicable to the r....... + More

---

• 2018 (3) TMI 1728
  
  Rebate of service tax - service tax paid on commission agents services - N/N. 41/2012, dated 29-6-2012 - services used beyond the place of removal - Held that:- It is quite evident that the commission agents have not actually provided any service regarding recovery of foreign proceeds from the foreign buyers and their services regarding procurement of the orders was not used beyond factory as envisaged in the definition of specified services. Hence, while it can be an input service for availing Cenvat credit under CCR, 2004, it is not a specified service for getting rebate of service tax under Notification No. 41/2012-S.T. Hence, the rebate of service tax on the commission agents’ services is not admissible under Notification No. 41/2012-S.T., even in the light of amended definition of specified services with effect from 1-7-2012. The Gov....... + More

---

• 2018 (3) TMI 1723
  
  Rebate claim - export of goods - inspection services not used beyond the place of removal of goods for export of goods - N/N. 41/2012-S.T., dated 29-6-2012 - Held that:- The applicant has not claimed anywhere that the inspection services were used in respect of the exported goods beyond factory and instead it has been unambiguously accepted in grounds of application at Sl. No. (B) that the inspection services are rendered after the manufacture of the goods but before the removal of the same from the factory from which it is explicit that the inspection service was used within the factory only and not beyond the factory. As a result, it is not a specified service in terms of Notification No. 41/2012-S.T. for the purpose of getting rebate of service tax paid on the specified services - rebate cannot be granted. Liability of interest on erro....... + More

---

• 2018 (3) TMI 1722
  
  Refund of service tax paid - export of rice - rejection on the ground that the difference between the amount of rebate under the procedure specified in Para 2 and Para 3 is lesser than 20% of the rebate admissible under the procedure specified in Para 2 of N/N. 41/2012- S.T., dated 29-6-2012 - Held that:- On mere reading of the N/N. 41/2012-S.T., it is evident that an option is given to the claimant either to claim rebate of service tax under Para 2 or Para 3 of the said notification. The rebate claim under Para 2 is required to be filed with the concerned Custom House along with shipping bills as per rates specified for different items in the Schedule to the above notification. There is no dispute that in the instant case the rebate claims are not maintainable under Para 3 as the difference between the amount of rebate claimed under Para....... + More

---

• 2018 (2) TMI 1844
  
  Jurisdiction - power to rectify the mistake under Section 74 of the Finance Act, 1994 - Rebate of service tax - rejection on the ground that she did not have power to amend/modify her own order - Held that:- It is noticed by the Government at the outset that the revision application has been filed after the gap of 10 months from the receipt of the OIA by the applicant in this case. Whereas as per Section 35EE(2) of the Central Excise Act, 1944, made applicable to the service tax matters by virtue of Section 83 of the Finance Act, 1994, the revision application was required to be filed within 3 months from the date of the order of the Commissioner (Appeals). This enormous delay is sought to be condoned on the ground that they had filed appeal wrongly against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) before CESTAT on 28-10-2015 and it has bee....... + More

---

• 2018 (2) TMI 1843
  
  Rebate claim - export of services - Rules 5 of Export of Services Rules, 2005 read with Notification No. 11/2005-S.T., dated 19-4-2005 - rebate rejected for the reason that for no foreign exchange against export of services is received in this case and in addition out of the rebate claim of ₹ 1,09,72,290/- claim of ₹ 52,57,641/- is also time-barred as per Section 11B of Central Excise Act, 1944 - Held that:- The Government agrees with the views of the Assistant Commissioner and the Commissioner (Appeals) who have reached the conclusion that the Rule 3(2)(b) of Export of Services Rules, 2005 has not been satisfied in this case. Consequently it cannot be accepted that the applicant has exported service in this case as per Rule 3(2)(b) of the Export of Services Rules and accordingly the rebate of Service Tax is not admissible to ....... + More

---

• 2018 (2) TMI 1841
  
  Maintainability of revision application - rejection on the ground of time bar - communication/service of order - change in address - Jurisdiction - revisionary power under Section 86 of the Finance Act, 1994 - Held that:- As per Section 83 of Finance Act, 1994, read with Section 35EE of the Central Excise Act, 1944, a Revision Application is to be accompanied by a fee of ₹ 1,000/- where the amount of Service Tax levied by any officer is more than ₹ 1.00 lakh. This requirement of payment of fee before or at the time of filing the application is mandatory and no relaxation in this regard is provided under the aforesaid provision or any other Section - Thus if any application is not accompanied by the specified fee, such application cannot be considered as proper Revision Application by virtue of the above-mentioned provision. Si....... + More

---

• 2014 (9) TMI 644
  
  Revision applicable before the Government of India - Levy of penalty u/s 77 for delayed submission of ST-3 return in violation of Section 70 - Held that:- Government observes that the issue involved in impugned case is of delayed submission of ST-3 return in violation of Section 70 of the Finance Act, 1994. Government finds that this issue does not fall in the category of cases mentioned in proviso to Section 35B(1) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 and hence revision application is filed beyond jurisdiction and not maintainable under Section 35EE of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The applicant is required to file appeal before Hon’ble CESTAT. - application rejected.

---

• 2014 (2) TMI 525
  
  Classification - preparation of ship model of 90 mts AOPV including all appendages as per the technical data and design - assessee contended that the said service was liable to service tax under the reverse mechanism only if the service was partly or wholly performed in India. Since the said service was wholly received in Netherlands they were not liable to service tax under the reverse mechanism. - Held that:- In this particular transaction the said taxable services mentioned in Section 65(105)(zzh) can be said to have been received in India only when such services are partly or wholly performed in India. In the instant case service is performed and received only outside India i.e. in the Netherlands and there is no import of service. As such there is no taxable service. - the conclusion of the Lower Adjudicator that the service merits classification under Section 65(105)(g) - Consulting Engineer, gets set aside. - Decided in favor of assessee.

---