Feedback   New User   Login      
Tax Management India. Com TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Acts / Rules Notifications Circulars Tariff/ ITC HSN Forms Case Laws Manuals Short Notes Articles SMS News Highlights
Case Laws
Home Case Index All Cases Service Tax HC Service Tax - HC
Citation -
Order by


Service Tax - High Court - Case Laws

Showing 41 to 60 of 2035 Records

  • 2017 (12) TMI 1070 - GUWAHATI HIGH COURT

    M/s Mascote Entrade Pvt. Ltd. Versus The Union of India and 2 Ors.

    Demand of service tax - Validity of SCN - scenario after the attachment of the Central Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017 as well as the omission of Entry 92C from List-I of the Seventh Schedule of the constitution - Held that - this Court is of the prima facie opinion that the impugned notice dated 23.10.2017 is without jurisdiction - further proceeding under the impugned notice is hereby stayed until the returnable date........ + More

  • 2017 (12) TMI 968 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT

    Samudra Alloys Pvt. Ltd & 1 Versus Customs, Excise & AMP; Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) , Westzone Bench And 1

    Condonation of delay of 56 days in filing appeal - the order under challenge was served at its factory premises whereas the administrative office was situated elsewhere which consumed sometime in preferring the appeal - Held that - delay in preferring the appeal was not unduly long. The explanation of the assessee was neither untenable nor baseless. It is not the case that the Tribunal lacked power to condone delay - Delay in filing appeal before....... + More

  • 2017 (12) TMI 775 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT

    M/s Cyquator Media Services P. Ltd. Versus Union Of India Thru' Its Secy. & 2 Others

    CENVAT credit - Call centre services - non-registered premises - duty paying invoices - invoices containing name of the petitioner prior to its merger - case of the department is that since the invoices were raised in the name of unregistered premises, therefore, the petitioner s company is not eligible to claim the CENVAT Credit - according to petitioner, there is no provision under the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 nor in Service Tax Rules, 1994 wh....... + More

  • 2017 (12) TMI 687 - MADRAS HIGH COURT

    M/s. Aluminium and Glazing Versus The Commissioner (Appeals-I) , O/o the Commissioner of Service Tax (Appeals-I)

    Classification of services - business of Structural Glazing and Cladding - whether the directions issued by the Tribunal are mandatory in nature for the Commissioner (Appeals) to comply with the same scrupulously? - Held that - Useful reference can be made to the decision of the Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India Vs. Kamalakshi Finance Corporation 1991 (9) TMI 72 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA wherein it has been held that directives o....... + More

  • 2017 (12) TMI 685 - MADRAS HIGH COURT

    Muzaffer Ahmed, Chief Executive Officer Versus The Government of India, The Deputy Commissioner (Preventive) , O/o the Principal Commissioner of GST and Central Excise, Chennai

    Writ of Prohibition - tour operator services and/or travel agent services - if the petitioners have rendered tour operator services and/or travel agent services to other than those, who are either Haj or Umra pilgrims, the second respondent has to examine as to how such transactions have to be assessed? - Services rendered to Indian Haj and Umra pilgrims, who go to Saudi Arabia - petitioners case is that such services are fully exempt by relying ....... + More

  • 2017 (12) TMI 452 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT

    Country Club Hospitability & Holidays Ltd. Versus Union of India & Others

    Jurisdiction - power of Settlement Commission to reject an application - case of petitioner was that the application cannot be rejected subsequent to the stage of subsection 1 of section 32-F on the ground of bar created by section 32-O. Paragraph 9 is exactly to the contrary - penalty - Held that - section 32-O creates a bar for entertaining subsequent application for settlement. It provides that the bar will be attracted if there is an impositi....... + More

  • 2017 (12) TMI 286 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT

    Commissioner of Central Excise Versus M/s Tehri Pulp & Paper Ltd.

    Clearing and forwarding agency services - certain contracts entered into by the assessee, amongst others with Rampur Distillery and Holosticks India Pvt. Ltd. being in the nature of commission agency contracts also involving, in some parts, supervision of transportation of goods in certain circumstances - Whether the agreement entered into by the party for providing host of services viz. Supervision of transportation, Arranging transportation, Co....... + More

  • 2017 (11) TMI 1522 - MADRAS HIGH COURT

    M/s. Ponni Sugars (Erode) Ltd. Versus The Assistant Commissioner of CGST, The Additional Commissioner, office of the Commissioner of Central Excise, The Joint Commissioner, office of the Commissioner of Central Excise

    Demand of service tax - adjudication of case after the Scheme of Arrangement - sick unit - Held that - This Court does not wish to express any opinion at this juncture, as the first respondent is yet to adjudicate the case. The first respondent, having issued the impugned demand, has to consider the petitioner s objections and pass an order and it is open to the petitioner to prefer an appeal. On the other hand, if the first respondent is convinc....... + More

  • 2017 (11) TMI 1521 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT

    Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation Versus Commissioner of Central Service, Kolhapur

    Restoration of application for stay - Held that - While deciding the application for stay, the Appellate Tribunal always could have gone into the question whether prima facie there is any merit in the appeal. However, from the impugned order, we find that the Appellate Tribunal has recorded a final finding on merits of the appeal by holding that the appeal was devoid of any merit. In fact, the Appellate Tribunal proceeded to dismiss the appeal an....... + More

  • 2017 (11) TMI 1408 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT

    Commissioner of Central Excise Jaipur- (Presently Commissioner of Central Excise-Jaipur) Versus M/s Shree Cement Ltd.

    CENVAT credit - input services - GTA services - auction services - insurance services - rent-a-cab services - outdoor Catering services - Club or Association services - Clearing & Forwarding (C&F) agency services -cargo handling services - insurance services - Held that - the issue is squarely covered by the decision in the case of Commissioner, Central Excise Versus M/s Manglam Cement Ltd. 2017 (11) TMI 483 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT . - Scope o....... + More

  • 2017 (11) TMI 1335 - DELHI HIGH COURT

    Commissioner of Tax, GST Delhi East Versus M/s. Indian Railway Finance Corporation

    Penalty - Reverse charge mechanism - Fees for Overseas Borrowing paid to several non-resident financial institutions - Held that - Goodness and precocious conduct of the respondent Corporation in making payment has to be appreciated and not condemned - The respondent-Corporation, to show their bona fides, had paid service tax even for the period prior to 19th April, 2006. Non-contest in the proceedings under Section 73 cannot be used as a ground ....... + More

  • 2017 (11) TMI 1112 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT

    Rajasthan State Beverages Corporation Versus The Commissioner of Central Excise

    Business Auxiliary Services - C&F service - regulate supply of liquor through conferring the exclusive privilege of purchase and sale in the wholesale thereof - sale of liquor only through the canalising agency - Held that - the issue is decided in the case of Union of India vs. M/s. Chattisgarh Estate Beverages Corporation 2015 (3) TMI 744 - CHHATTISGARH HIGH COURT , where it was held that The Tribunal has recorded a finding of fact that the Cor....... + More

  • 2017 (11) TMI 1042 - MADRAS HIGH COURT

    H.U. Saleem, M/s Royal Travels Versus The Superintendent of Central Excise

    Tour operator service - petitioner s contention is that the petitioner s vehicle, which is a contract carriage does not satisfy the ingredients of tourists vehicle, and the demand made by the respondent is illegal - Held that - the interpretation sought to be given to the observations of the Court does not, in any manner, advance the case of the petitioner. - The rationale applicable to Stage Carriage Permits would equally apply to Contract Carri....... + More

  • 2017 (11) TMI 1018 - DELHI HIGH COURT

    Haiko Logistics India Pvt. Ltd. Versus Union of India & ORS.

    Vires of Rule 5A (1) of the Service Tax Rules 1994 - abuse of powers and patent illegality in carrying out the survey/seizure operation in the premises of the Petitioner - Held that - It is surprising that despite these serious allegations, till date, the Respondents have chosen not to file reply. The failure of the Respondents to do so would have legal consequences. At the same time, the Court cannot be denied the assistance required in matters ....... + More

  • 2017 (11) TMI 1015 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT

    The Commissioner, Central Excise And Service Tax, Kolhapur Versus M/s. Y.M. Krishna SSK Ltd.

    Intellectual Property service - It is alleged that the Respondent has allowed M/s. Talareja Trade to use brand name PahiliDhar for marketing country liquor manufactured by the Respondent - Held that - The Respondent is holding CL1 License for manufacturing country liquor and was desirous of obtaining higher returns on the investment made by it on its country liquor plant. The Respondent decided to appoint M/s.Talareja Trade as sole selling agent ....... + More

  • 2017 (11) TMI 837 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT

    M/s. J.M.J Promotions Prop. Gration Anil Pinto Versus Commissioner of Central Excise & Service Tax, The Vice Chairman Settlement Commission

    Immunities granted under the Order No.18/2014-ST dated 28.3.2014 - Section 32K of the Act - Held that - this Court is of the opinion that it is not open to the Respondent-Commissioner of Central Excise and Service Tax to himself treat the order of Settlement Commission as non est because, in his opinion, the condition of granting immunity under the said order by payment of service tax dues to the extent of 2.19 crore was not satisfied. If at all ....... + More

  • 2017 (11) TMI 836 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT

    Commandant, Central Industrial Security Force Versus Union of India

    Maintainability of petition - condonation of delay in filing appeal - Held that - It is true that this Court has under rare and exceptional circumstances entertained writ petitions directly against the orders of the adjudicating authorities where by virtue of the nonextendable period of limitation prescribed by the statute has expired. While doing so, the Court has always been careful of not exercising such powers in a routine manner, virtually p....... + More

  • 2017 (11) TMI 721 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT

    Vardhman Associates Versus Commissioner (Appeals) , Central Excise

    Restoration of Rectification of mistake application - Held that - this Court finds that no reasons are recorded in the order of Commissioner (Appeals) for coming to the conclusion that no rectifiable mistake has occurred. It is settled principle of law that the reasons are the soul of an order and in its absence, the order itself is rendered lifeless - rectification application stands restored........ + More

  • 2017 (11) TMI 661 - DELHI HIGH COURT

    Delhi High Court Bar Association & ANR. And Sajan Poovayya Versus Union of India & ORS.

    Service tax on advocates - period from 1st April 2016 to 5th June 2016 - Reverse charge mechanism - fees payable to advocates - N/N. 30/2012-ST dated 20th June 2012 - Held that - There is no prejudice caused to the Department for the simple reason that the service tax from 1st April 2016 itself ought to have been collected on reverse charge basis. If any client who has paid the fees of the Senior Advocate, has failed to make payment of the corres....... + More

  • 2017 (11) TMI 549 - MADRAS HIGH COURT

    Commissioner of Service Tax, Chennai Versus M/s. RMC Ready Mix India Pvt. Ltd.

    Rectification of mistake - GTA service - appeal against the order of Commissioner (Appeals) - Whether, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the decision of CESTAT in refusing to recall the Final Order for purpose of hearing the appeals together was correct in law even after admitting and correcting the mistake? - Held that - there is no need to advert to the substantial questions of law, raised in the instant Civil Miscellaneous Appeals an....... + More

Discussion Forum
what is new what is new


|| Home || About us || Feedback || Contact us || Disclaimer || Terms of Use || Privacy Policy || TMI Database || Members ||

© [A unit of MS Knowledge Processing Pvt. Ltd.] All rights reserved.

Go to Mobile Version