|
Advanced Search Options
Service Tax - Case Laws
Showing 161 to 180 of 181 Records
-
2018 (1) TMI 118 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Classification of services - Works Contract Service - Matter remaining pending on the file of respondent pursuant to the order of remand - Held that: - The grounds raised by the petitioner in the earlier round of litigation is identical to the grounds raised herein and one more additional point is with regard to retrospective effect of Finance Act, 2017. This issue has been specifically canvassed in this writ petition - this Court is of the view that the issue, which is covered in the present writ petition viz., the demand of service tax for the period from 01.04.2010 to 30.06.2012, also requires to be re-done. Since the remand, which was ordered by this Court for the period from July 2012 to September, 2013 is yet to attain finality and for the subsequent period, the demand has been dropped by a speaking order, the impugned issue requires re-consideration.
Matter is remanded to the respondent for fresh consideration.
-
2018 (1) TMI 117 - CESTAT BANGALORE
CENVAT credit - non-production of documents - Held that: - the case needs to be remanded back because the documents which had been produced before me have not been produced before the adjudicating authority, therefore, I remand the case to the original authority to pass a de novo order after considering the evidence which the appellant may produce in support of his case - appeal allowed by way of remand.
-
2018 (1) TMI 116 - CESTAT NEW DELHI
Renting of Immovable property service - local authority functioning under Chattisgarh Municipal Corporation Act, 1956 - appellant had buildings/shops, which were given out to people for running business in terms of Mukhyamantri Swalamban Yojna and similar such schemes - Held that: - “Renting of immovable property” service is with reference to renting, leasing, licensing, or other similar arrangement of immovable property for use in course for “furtherance of business or commerce.”.The exclusion given is with reference to renting of such property by religious body or education body. We could not find any exclusion from the tax entry which will apply to the appellants - We could not find any exclusion from the tax entry which will apply to the appellants.
Renting of vacant land - land used for commercial construction for renting out - Held that: - After 1.7.2010, the same will be liable to tax - reliance placed in the case of In The Matter of Greater Noida Industrial Development Auth. Versus Commissioner of Customs, Central Excise And 6 Others [2015 (4) TMI 661 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT].
Extended period of limitation - Held that: - the appellant is a statutory authority functioning as a local Government. The nature and status of the appellant is such that there can be no allegation of malafide, willful intend to evade government tax - the demand for the extended period cannot be sustained in the present facts of the case.
Appeal allowed in part - the jurisdictional authorities directed to re-quantify the tax liability applying correct rate of tax for the material time.
-
2018 (1) TMI 115 - CESTAT NEW DELHI
Abatement - Erection, Commissioning & Installation services - N/N. 1/2006-ST dated 01.03.2006 - denial on the ground that the conditions enumerated therein have not been fulfilled for claiming the benefit of abatement - Held that: - since the admitted fact is that the appellant had not supplied plant, machinery equipment etc. and only undertook the job of erection commissioning and installation of the capital items installed in the factory of the service receiver, the condition of said notification, in totality has not been fulfilled, in order to get the benefit of abatement provided there under - denial of benefit of abatement are proper and justified.
Penalty - Held that: - since the issue involves interpretation of N/N. 01/2006-ST dated 01/03/2006, the benefit of Section 80 of the Act should be extended for non-imposition of penalties under various provisions of the Act - penalties set aside.
Appeal allowed in part.
-
2018 (1) TMI 114 - CESTAT BANGALORE
Renting of immovable property service - lease of land and building, plant and machinery for the use in the course of furtherance of business or commerce - Held that: - The lease amount received by the appellant appears to be prima facie for the leasing of the plant and machinery as well as land and building as a whole. It appears to us that such amount received is liable for service tax under the category of renting of immovable property service, since the amount has been received in furtherance of business.
The appellant is directed to deposit the entire amount of service tax demanded within a period of eight weeks. Subject to the payment of service tax as above and compliance thereof, the rest of the demand made in the impugned order will remain stayed.
-
2018 (1) TMI 113 - CESTAT ALLAHABAD
SEZ unit - refund of service tax - N/N. 40/12-ST dt. 20.06.2012 - Held that: - the Revenue in their memo of appeal, has not been satisfactorily able to convass their case. Once the substantive condition of the Notification has been fulfilled by an Assessee, denial of refund on the procedural condition, which are impossible to observe, cannot be appreciated - appeal dismissed - decided against Revenue.
-
2018 (1) TMI 112 - CESTAT HYDERABAD
Whether the adjudicating authority was correct in coming to conclusion as to appellant has short paid the service at liability during relevant period in question or otherwise?
Held that: - on perusal of records, like the invoice raised by the appellant to various clients (including few governments agencies), it is found that the said Invoices are towards supply of various products viz single sheet calendars, stickers and envelops and posters, 3D embossed sheets, Flute boards and form boards holdings etc., and the said invoices indicate discharge of applicable CST - VAT and some invoices also raised by the appellants are for display of the holdings, on which applicable service tax is discharged - Surprisingly, the adjudicating authority has not recorded any findings on this factual position.
Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.
-
2018 (1) TMI 111 - CESTAT ALLAHABAD
CENVAT credit - Pantry Boy Service/Catering Service - Event Management Services - Held that: - both the services are related to the business of the respondent and they have received the benefit of the same directly or indirectly, in the rendering of their Output Taxable Services - credit allowed - appeal dismissed - decided against Revenue.
-
2018 (1) TMI 110 - CESTAT MUMBAI
100% EOU - Refund of CENVAT credit of service tax paid under Voluntary Compliance Entitlement Scheme (VCES), availed - Held that: - the appellant is under wrong understanding that Cenvat credit availed for the taxes paid under VCES-2013 can be claimed as refund - Section 109 of Chapter VI of Finance Act, 2013 explicitly states that such amount paid shall not be refunded in any circumstances - appeal dismissed.
-
2018 (1) TMI 60 - CESTAT BANGALORE
Penalty - service tax with interest paid on being pointed out - Held that: - the differential service tax already stands paid by the appellant in full. The interest liability for such delayed payment has also been made even before the show-cause notice was issued - in terms of Section 73(3) of the FA, 1994, if the service tax has already been paid with interest before issue of show-cause notice, there will be no need to issue show-cause notice and hence there will be no liability for penalty - demand of tax with interest upheld - appeal allowed in part.
-
2018 (1) TMI 59 - CESTAT BANGALORE
N/N. 13/2003-ST dt. 20/06/2003 - business auxiliary services provided by a commission agent - Held that: - identical issue has come up before the Tribunal in the case of CST, Delhi Vs. P.N. Vijay Financial Services (P) Ltd. [2008 (9) TMI 72 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI] wherein it was held that no service tax will be payable on similar sale of mutual fund units - no service tax will be payable on such commission received during the period 01/07/2003 to 30/06/2004 during which the appellant will be eligible for the benefit of exemption N/N. 13/2003-ST dt. 0/06/2003 - Appeal allowed.
-
2018 (1) TMI 58 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD
Refund of service tax which was not payable - denial on the ground that appellant has not filed the prescribed documents in terms of Section 11B of CEA - Held that: - the appellant has produced the registration number and other details of the builder who sold the flat to the appellant and collected service tax from the appellant on behalf of the Revenue being their agent. In that circumstances, it is duty of the refund sanctioning authority to verify the fact whether the service provider has paid the service tax or not - appeal allowed by way of remand.
-
2018 (1) TMI 57 - CESTAT BANGALORE
Refund claim - concept of TTO vis-a-vis ETO as defined in Rule 5(1)(E) of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 - Held that: - Since the appellant had no other services apart from export services during the refund claim period, the export turnover of services determined in terms of clause (D) of sub-rule (1) shall be the total turnover.
The appellant during the relevant period has only ETO, therefore, reimbursement of expenses has to be excluded from the ETO as well as TTO and only then it will give the fair results - both the authorities had wrongly applied the formula as prescribed under Rule 5(1)(E) of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 read with N/N. 27/2012-CE NT dt. 18/06/2012. In view of the wrong application of the formula, the refund has been rejected.
Matter remanded to to the original authority to recompute the TTO and then decide the refund claim of the appellant - appeal allowed by way of remand.
-
2018 (1) TMI 56 - CESTAT CHANDIGARH
Valuation - free warranty services - Held that: - the appellant have marketing division which has obtained the permission as input service distributor and they have service division, which is engaged in the repair and maintenance and after sale service on warranty and AMC basis - matter is sent back to the adjudicating authority to take into account various documentary evidences which the appellant have furnished including ledgers and returns to support their claim that the entries can be easily correlated for respective divisions - appeal allowed by way of remand.
-
2018 (1) TMI 55 - CESTAT MUMBAI
Valuation - includibility - value of parts used for replacement on which VAT is paid is includible in the value of the service of “Authorized Service Station” - Held that: - the parts used for providing repair and maintenance service of the vehicle, the same is clearly sold to the client on which the VAT was paid. Therefore the parts used for providing repair and maintenance service is sale of goods and not part of service, therefore the same is not taxable under the Finance Act, 1994 - service tax on the value of parts used for repair and maintenance of vehicle is clearly not sustainable - appeal allowed.
-
2018 (1) TMI 54 - CESTAT ALLAHABAD
Validity of subsequent SCN - Interest on refund - Held that: - The issue of subsequent show cause notice was wholly without jurisdiction and also amounts to insubordination - SCN not sustainable - appellant is entitled to interest in addition to the amount of refund - appeal disposed off.
-
2018 (1) TMI 53 - CESTAT MUMBAI
Application for restoration of appeal - Held that: - the application for restoration of appeal is not the course available to the applicant against our final order dated 30th November, 2016 - despite notice none appeared for the appellant - the applicant has not made out a case in his favor - application for restoration of appeal dismissed.
-
2018 (1) TMI 52 - CHHATTISGARH HIGH COURT
CENVAT credit - input services - GTA services for transporting final products from the factory of the respondent to three premises - Held that: - the Tribunal held that the issue is covered in favor of the assessee as per the decision of the Karnataka High Court in COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE & SERVICE TAX, BANGALORE Versus M/s ABB LTD. and others [2011 (3) TMI 248 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT], where it was held that Credit of service tax paid on outward transportation allowed prior to 1.4.2008 - appeal dismissed.
-
2018 (1) TMI 15 - CESTAT CHANDIGARH
Business Auxiliary Service - whether the income earned out on account of service claimed as export under the category of Business Auxiliary Service is chargeable to service tax during the period 01.04.2009 to 31.03.2011? - marketing activities like maximizing the markets for Microsoft products including all local advertising, dissemination of information to potential customers, commenting on any developments in the territory affecting the software industry, investigating feasibility for new markets for Microsoft products etc. - Held that: - an identical issue has been examined by this Tribunal in the appellants own case M/s. Microsoft Corporation (I) (P) Ltd. Versus CST. New Delhi [2014 (10) TMI 200 - CESTAT NEW DELHI (LB)], where it was held that the services are being provided by the appellant to Singapore Recipient company and to be used by them at Singapore, may be for the purpose of the sale of their product in India, have to be held as export of services - such services provided to M/s Microsoft Operations P. Ltd. Singapore, amount to export of services and hence are not liable to service tax, we hold that the services being provided by appellants satisfy the conditions of Export of Service Rules, 2005, hence are not liable to service tax.
Valuation - includibility - reimbursement received on account of services claimed as exported - Business Auxiliary Services - Held that: - the Business Auxiliary Services in relation to MSS is covered as export of service under Export of Service Rules, 2005, the reimbursement in relation to MSS would also therefore, be not liable to service tax.
Levy of service tax - maintenance and repair of software - Board Circular No.256/1/2006-CX-04 dated 07.03.2006 - Held that: - The appellants have argued that product support services have been held to be non taxable in their own case by the Division Bench of this Tribunal because there was no difference of opinion on this issue between the two members and accordingly the issue is covered by the Final Order no.53737/2014 dated 23.09.2014 - demand set aside.
Reverse charge mechanism - expenditure on foreign currency - Held that: - the fact remains that the Ld. Commissioner has given no findings at all on the above demand in the impugned order and it would be in the interest of justice that the supporting evidence for the impugned period are submitted before the adjudicating authority, who will carefully examine the evidence in respect of this particular demand and given his findings and conclusion on the evidence and the submissions of the appellant made before him.
The matter pertaining to service tax on foreign expenditure for 17.04.2006 to 31.03.2009 is remanded back to the Ld. Adjudicating authority to pass a fresh adjudication order after giving fair opportunity to appellants to defend their case - appeal allowed by way of remand.
-
2018 (1) TMI 5 - CESTAT MUMBAI
Levy of service tax - receipts relating to deposits received from the tenants by the appellant - Rentals receipts from open plot - Parking fees - Held that: - the deposits were received from the tenants by the appellant do not have the character of rental receipts being security deposits that shall not form part of gross value and shall not be liable to service tax.
Rentals receipts from open plot - Held that: - Rentals receipts from open plot shall be exigible to service tax with effect from 01/07/2010 and not prior to the statutory provision inserted in terms of clause (v)(b) under Section 65(105)(zzzz) of the Finance Act, 1994.
Parking fees - Held that: - Parking fees received by the appellant from farmers not being in coverage of the taxable entry under Section 65(105)(zzzz) of the Finance Act, 1994, that shall not be taxable.
Penalty - case of appellant is that tax having been paid on the receipts from renting of immovable property with interest, there may not be levy of penalty - Held that: - Levy of service tax on renting of immovable property has travelled to various legal forums from the date of inception of levy. Therefore, there was confusion among tax payers for which there may be no levy of penalty on the appellant on renting of immovable property.
Appeal allowed in part.
....
|
