|
Advanced Search Options
Service Tax - Case Laws
Showing 221 to 240 of 323 Records
-
2018 (2) TMI 577 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
Validity of Show cause notice raising demand from January 2013 - Assessee had opted for Voluntary Compliance Entitlement Scheme (VCES) - filing of declaration and payment of dues - Held that: - The due Service Tax liability for the period upto December 2012, for which the petitioner had filed the Declaration in VCES-1 Form vide Annexure ‘C1’ cannot have any relation with the subsequent period commencing from January 2013. The liability of Service Tax depends upon the taxable event, which is the event or action of rendering of the services.
There is no dispute before this Court about the admitted tax liability for Service Tax of the petitioner and the Voluntary Scheme availed by the petitioner was only to square up his admitted Service Tax liability for the past period from 01.10.2007 to 31.12.2012, which payment was allowed to be made in instalments in a staggered manner before December 2013 and June 2014, as per the provisions of the said Scheme. That Declaration and Scheme itself can of course, have no effect on the subsequent period commencing from January 2013. The said Scheme availed by the petitioner having no effect in the impugned assessment proceedings for the subsequent period commencing from January 2013.
Petition dismissed.
-
2018 (2) TMI 576 - CESTAT NEW DELHI
Business Auxiliary Services - activities provided by the appellant for sale of SIM card and electronic rechargeable coupon to the customers - Held that: - similar issue decided in the case of Chotey Lal Radhey Shyam Versus Commissioner of Central Excise And Service Tax, Lucknow [2015 (11) TMI 979 - CESTAT ALLAHABAD], where it was held that the appellant is only engaged in trading activity and does not render any taxable service in the category of 'business auxiliary service' - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.
-
2018 (2) TMI 575 - CESTAT, ALLAHABAD
Refund claim - denial on the ground that the invoices etc. do not bear the clear description of the service and the credit has been availed by the assesee before making payment of the invoices and the house keeping of cafeteria service has no nexus with output service etc. - Held that: - the Commissioner (Appeals) has dealt with in detailed with each and every of the objection of the Revenue and held in favor of assessee - Revenue in their memo of appeal has not raised any ground worth rebutting the above finding of Commissioner (Appeals) - appeal dismissed - decided against Revenue.
-
2018 (2) TMI 574 - CESTAT, ALLAHABAD
Valuation - whether the commission from insurance companies and from financial institutions would form part of the assessable of the service being provided by them or not? - Held that: - the issue stands decided against them by various decisions of the Tribunal and as such they are not contesting the same.
Whether the discounts extended by the manufacturing companies would be liable to service tax by including same in the value of the services? - Held that: - the appellant have not contested the demands on the ground of commissions received from insurance companies and financial institutions. As such the quantification of their liability to pay service tax is required to be done by the Original Adjudicating Authority.
Penalty - Held that: - the said issue was the subject matter of various litigations before various forums and as such was not free from doubt, thus not justifying imposition of any penalty upon the appellant.
Appeal allowed by way of remand.
-
2018 (2) TMI 573 - CESTAT, ALLAHABAD
Small Scale exemption utpo ₹ 10 lakhs - Rent-a-cab Operator Service - benefit of N/N.6/2005-ST dated 01.03.2005 - Held that: - On perusal of the said N/N. 9/2004 and No.1/2006-ST, we find that 60% of the consideration received is exempted from the whole of the service tax leviable thereon. Therefore, we find that for the purpose of calculation of aggregate value as per said explanation “B” 60% of the consideration received by the appellant for which exemption was admissible does not need to be taken into consideration.
After excluding 60% consideration the aggregate value of clearance for the years 2007-08, 2008-09 and 2009-10 in the present case is within the permissible limit for the exemption under the said Notification No.6/2005-ST dated 01.03.2005 which exempts taxable service from whole of service tax leviable under Section 66 of the FA 1994 - benefit allowed - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.
-
2018 (2) TMI 572 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD
Penalty u/s 77(2) of the FA 1994 - delay in filing the service tax return - penalty of ₹ 20,000/- for each return - Held that: - the adjudicating authority has imposed penalty under Section 77(2) for contravention of the provisions under section 70 of the Finance Act, 1994 read with Rule 7 of the Service Tax Rules, 1994, up to ₹ 1,000/-. When the penalty has been imposed under Section 77(2) of the Finance Act, 1994, in that circumstance penalty under Section 70 cannot be imposed on the assessee.
penalty of ₹ 40,000/- imposed on the appellant is set-aside and penalty of ₹ 1,000/- imposed on the appellant under Section 77 of the Finance Act, 1994 for contravention of provisions of Section 70 of the Finance Act, 1994 read with Rule 7 of Service Tax Rules, 1994, is confirmed.
When penalty under Rule 7 has been imposed on the appellant, no late fees can be imposed.
Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.
-
2018 (2) TMI 571 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD
CENVAT credit - sales commission - Held that: - In similar circumstances, a Division Bench of this Tribunal in the case of Ashapura Volclay Ltd and others Vs. C.C., Jamnagar [2017 (6) TMI 659 - CESTAT - Ahmedabad] following the principle laid down by the Larger Bench, disposed of the matter, with the liberty to approach the Tribunal after disposal of the cases pending before the higher forum.
The present appeals are also disposed of with the liberty to both sides to approach the Tribunal - appeal disposed off.
-
2018 (2) TMI 570 - CESTAT CHENNAI
Liability of service tax - commission received - M/s. Herbalife distributes / sells their nutritional food products and cosmetics through a network of independent distributors across India - The department was of the view that the appellant has not discharged the liability of service tax for the commission received - Held that: - There is no material to establish that the appellant has suppressed facts and in fact during the relevant time the issue whether an independent distributor engaged in multilevel marketing is subject to levy of service tax was under much dispute - the demand for the extended period of limitation is unjustified and requires to be set aside - the matter is remanded to the adjudicating authority for the limited purpose of quantification of the service tax for the normal period - appeal allowed by way of remand.
-
2018 (2) TMI 569 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD
Liability of service tax - various charges viz., NSE/BSE transaction charges, SEBI turnover fees, Stamp duty, Depository/Demat charges and Security Transaction charges, shown separately in the respective invoices - whether the appellants-stock brokers are required to include NSE/BSE transaction charges, SEBI turnover fees, Stamp duty, Depository/Demat charges and Security Transaction charges in the value of “brokerage and commission charges” recovered from their customers/clients?
Held that: - similar issue decided in the case of LSE Securities Ltd. Versus CCE [2012 (6) TMI 364 - CESTAT, New Delhi], where it was held that the charges realized by appellants were not being of commission or brokerage are not taxable and shall not form part of gross value of taxable service.
The allegation of the department that the demat charges collected by the brokers are banking and financial service, hence taxable, also devoid of merit in as much such charges are collected by the Appellant and paid to the depository participants viz. CDSL/NSDL who are authorised to levy such charges under the Depositories Act, 1996.
Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.
-
2018 (2) TMI 563 - CESTAT, MUMBAI
CENVAT credit - input services - repair and maintenance of ADMs under Annual Maintenance Contract - Held that: - the repair and maintenance service received by the appellant for repair of the ADMs which has been leased out to the dealers/distributors, an input service i.e. repair and maintenance is carried out during the leasing of the machine - the leasing of the machine is output service on which Service Tax has been discharged. During the leasing period, the repair and maintenance service was provided on the leased machine. Therefore, repair and maintenance service become input service for providing output service i.e. leasing of machine - credit allowed - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.
-
2018 (2) TMI 486 - CESTAT, ALLAHABAD
Online Information and data processing & retrival - the recipient who create further chain of clients of the company were called “associates” and get commission from M/s.E-Biz Company for the service provide - whether taxable under Business Auxiliary Services or otherwise? - Held that: - an identical issue was considered by this Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Sumit Singh v. CCE & ST, Ghaziabad wherein this Tribunal held that the appellant was paying service tax on the full amount which receives through the receipt and the amount received by the agents are already taxed then no further liability of service tax arose - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.
-
2018 (2) TMI 485 - CESTAT BANGALORE
CHA service - service tax in respect of turnkey jobs on 15% of the gross amount charged from the clients as per the Circular dated 6.6.1997 issued by CBEC - Held that: - the service tax on CHA services stands already paid by the appellant as per the Scheme, which was valid up to 2006. Hence, the Revenue is not justified in vivisecting the total lump sum received and charging service tax on activity of cargo handling under Port Services - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.
-
2018 (2) TMI 484 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD
Liability of interest - short payment of service tax - Section 75 of the Finance Act, 1994 - Held that: - the appellant had filed returns during the relevant period in question, which would mean that there was no suppression of the fact but due to a human error, the short payment of tax was done - in case of appellant itself, in G M (Telecom), BSNL Vs CCE Chandigarh [2003 (6) TMI 6 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI], the Tribunal has held that appellant being Central Government Department, interest liability cannot be pertained.
The case is hand, the appellant cannot be burdened with interest liability as the short payment of duty was made good immediately - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.
-
2018 (2) TMI 483 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD
Refund claim - amount received in advance - Held that: - The order of this Tribunal in the case of Partibha Consturction, Engineers and Contractors India P Ltd [2010 (12) TMI 331 - CESTAT, MUMBAI] has neither been stayed nor has been set-aside by the higher forum. In that circumstances, authorities below are bound to accept the order of this Tribunal which the adjudicating authority did but, the Ld. Commissioner (A) has violated the judicial principle which is binding on him and had passed the order without going into the merits of the case - refund allowed - decided in favor of appellant.
-
2018 (2) TMI 482 - CESTAT CHENNAI
Service tax collected by the appellant and not paid to the Government - Held that: - no supporting evidence has been produced. In fact, the case has been listed on many occasions when none appeared for the appellant - considering that the main facts of the case are not in dispute with reference to liability of the appellant to pay service tax of ₹ 75,52,727/- which, in fact, they have collected from the customers, we find no reason to interfere with the findings of the original authority - demand upheld.
Liability of service tax - reimbursement charges collected by the appellant - Held that: - it is well settled legal position that reimbursable expenditure on actual basis which are incurred by the service provider on behalf of service recipient is not liable to be included in the taxable value of services - the demand of service tax of ₹ 2,75,561/- confirmed on reimbursement expenditure is not sustainable - demand set aside.
Appeal allowed in part.
-
2018 (2) TMI 481 - CESTAT, ALLAHABAD
Refund claim - scope of SCN - Held that: - the respondent were not issued with any SCN invoking Rule 14 of CCR 2004 proposing recovery of said Cenvat Credit. Therefore, the said Cenvat Credit which is available in the Cenvat account and which otherwise satisfied other requirements of said Rule 5 cannot be refused to be refunded - appeal dismissed - decided against Revenue.
-
2018 (2) TMI 480 - CESTAT CHENNAI
Ascertaining rate of tax - Taxable event - whether the taxable event for discharge of service tax liability for the month of March 2008 is the date of rendering the services or it is the date of realization of taxable value?
Held that: - Hon'ble High Court of Gujarat in the case of Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Schott Glass India Pvt. Ltd. [2009 (1) TMI 45 - HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT] has held that taxable event is the time of rendering the taxable service and not realization of payment thereof - appeal dismissed - decided against Revenue.
-
2018 (2) TMI 479 - CESTAT CHENNAI
Rent-a-cab service - the appellant was hiring vehicles to BSNL - Held that: - The Tribunal in the case of Rahul Travels Vs CCE [2016 (11) TMI 1294 - CESTAT MUMBAI] has held that hiring of cars and buses as contract carriage on payment based on their usage as per kilometre basis would not fall under the definition of "Rent-a-Cab service" or under "Tour Operator service" - demand set aside.
Levy of service tax - construction services within the period prior to 01.06.2007 - Held that: - The 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] has held that works contract service prior to 01.06.2007 cannot be subject matter to levy of service tax - demand set aside.
Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.
-
2018 (2) TMI 467 - CESTAT, ALLAHABAD
Small Scale exemption upto ₹ 10 lacs for providing BBusiness Auxiliary Services - commission received from the Bank & Financial Institutions for providing services to the Financial Institutions - N/N. 06/2005-ST dated 01/03/2005 - Held that: - the said services are covered by the definition of Business Auxiliary Service and were otherwise eligible for levy of Service Tax under the category of Business Auxiliary Service.
Branded services - Use of brand name of financial institutions - benefit of N/N. 06/2005-ST dated 01/03/2005 - Held that: - the said services were rendered to the Financial Institutions and therefore, the question of use of brand of the Financial Institutions by the Service Provider did not arise - services were not covered as Branded services and therefore, the Service Provider were eligible for exemption in terms of N/N. 06/2005-ST dated 01/03/2005.
Matter remanded back to the file of Original Adjudicating Authority to allow the said exemption in terms of N/N. 06/2005-ST dated 01/03/2005, to the appellant and re-determine the Service Tax liability - appeal allowed by way of remand.
-
2018 (2) TMI 409 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
Recovery of Service Tax dues - Garnishee order under Section 87 of the Finance Act of 1994 - Held that: - Admittedly in the present case, the Service Tax Liability determined against the petitioner assessee under the Garnishee orders Annexure A and Annexure B has not been set aside or even stayed by any higher Authority or Court or the Tribunal. Therefore, such liability of the petitioner assessee to pay such Service Tax to the Central Government does not have any bar or restriction upon the amount to be recovered by the Assessing Authority.
There is no illegality in the impugned Garnishee proceedings under Section 87 of the Act for recovery of the Service Tax dues from the petitioner.
Petition dismissed - decided against petitioner.
............
|
