Home Case Index All Cases Service Tax This

Law	-- All -- GST Income Tax Benami Property Customs Corporate Laws Securities / SEBI Insolvency & Bankruptcy FEMA Law of Competition 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-- 2025 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 >= 2 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 321 to 340 of 31546 Records

• 2025 (5) TMI 938
  

  Rectification of mistake under Section 86(6A) of the Finance Act, 1994 - Error apparent on the face of record or not - impugned order has failed to consider that the show cause notice had been issued beyond the normal period and was time barred - HELD THAT:- In the instant case, it is seen that the show cause notice was issued on 19.06.2014 invoking the extending period demanding service tax for the period 1.4.2012 to 31.03.2013. As per the proviso to section 73(1), the demand can be raised for a period of five years from the relevant date. The demand in the instant case was for the period 1.4.2012 to 31.03.2013 raised vide show cause notice dated 19.06.2014. Vide the impugned final order, the demand has been upheld for the normal period.

  There is no error apparent on record. Consequently, the instant application stands dismissed.

  ---

• 2025 (5) TMI 937
  

  Time limitation - initiation of limitation before Commissioner (Appeals) and also up to which period it can be extended - HELD THAT:- The decision quoted by the Authorized Representative of the Tribunal and also that of the Hon’ble Andhra Pradesh High Court is in CHERISH INDIA EXPORTS VERSUS THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF STATE TAX AND OTHERS [2025 (1) TMI 1303 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT] is in relation to refund an limitation of the same which deals with “date of filing”. The same are not relevant for the purpose in hand. Since this Court is concerned with point of limitation and the expression used in the relevant section is “presented”. This Court finds the decision of the Hon’ble High Court of Bombay though in writ petition meets the issue. Interpretation of law done by the Hon’ble Bombay High Court is equally applicable in this case.

  Therefore, appeals are remitted back to the Commissioner (Appeals) to be considered on merits. The appeals are allowed by way of remand.

  ---

• 2025 (5) TMI 798
  

  Taxable service provided or not - Business Auxiliary Services - extended period of limitation - Best Judgment method resorted to by the Department for the year 2014-15.

  Taxable service or not - HELD THAT:- As per the provisions of 'Business Auxiliary Services', any person is engaged in providing services in relation to promotion or marketing or sale of goods produced or provided by or belonging to the client, promotion or marketing of service provided by the client and any customer care services provided on behalf of client, would be taxable under the taxable category of Business Auxiliary Service as defined under the Finance Act, 1994.

  In the instant case, the services of appellant were to carry out promotional activities for the marketing and sales of Golden Palm Hotel & Spa, which included inserting advertisements in daily newspapers, magazines, television channels, placing hoardings, contracting and reaching people over the telephone, inform the public of the facility and amenities of the hotel etc. Consequently, it is noted that the services rendered by the appellant are fully covered under the taxable category of 'Business Auxiliary Services as defined under Section 65(105) (22b) of Finance Act, 1994. With effect from 1.07.2012, Section 66B provided that service tax would be levied at the rate of twelve per cent on the 'value of all the services, other than those specified in the negative list, provided or agreed to be provided in the taxable territory by one person to another.

  Best Judgment method resorted to by the Department for the year 2014-15 - HELD THAT:- There are no merits in the submissions made by the appellant challenging the findings arrived in the impugned order on the basis of best judgment assessment made as per section 72 of the Finance Act, 1994 - In the instant case, it is an admitted fact that the appellant did not submit any accounts for the Financial Year 2014-15. As the appellant did not submit the copy of Balance sheet for the Financial Year 2014-15, there was no option left with the department, but to invoke the Best Judgment Assessment as prescribed under Section 72 of the Finance Act, 1994.

  Conclusion - i) The services rendered by the appellant are fully covered under the taxable category of 'Business Auxiliary Services' as defined under Section 65(105)(22b) of Finance Act, 1994. ii) In the absence of any information coming forth from the appellant regarding the exact amount collected for the services rendered, the Department was justified in resorting to the best judgment method for assessment.

  Appeal dismissed.

  ---

• 2025 (5) TMI 774
  

  Short payment of service tax - Exemption from service tax under N/Ns. 1/2006-ST, dated 01.03.2006, 26/2012-ST, dated 20.06.2012 & 30/2012-ST, dated 20.06.2012 - Rent-a-cab scheme operator services and Manpower Recruitment or Supply Agency Service (MRSAS) - non-consideration of reply of appellant - violation of principles of natural justice - HELD THAT:- From a perusal of the impugned OIA, the Commissioner (Appeals) has assumed that the Appellant did not dispute the service tax liability and that the only dispute was the split--up demand in terms of Notification No.30/2012 with regard to abatement. Apart from this, unfortunately, the First Appellate Authority has not discussed anything about the merits since, according to him, no other grounds was urged before him. Reply filed by the appellant to the SCN before the Original Authority has been conveniently ignored by both the authorities.

  Moreover, the Appellant has been disputing the tax liability on various grounds since according to them, after the introduction of negative service with effect from 01.07.2012, the services to the Educational Institutions were specifically exempted, which, according to them, was their bona--fide understanding. Further, the cum--duty benefit has also not been discussed by both the lawyer authorities and hence, it is deemed it appropriate to set aside both the orders and remand the matter back to the file of Original Authority for de--novo adjudication. It goes without saying that the question of abatements and cum--duty benefits are the statutory benefits which should be made available to an assessee when the assessee is otherwise eligible for the same and for this, there may not be any separate claims by assessee since it is the duty of the statutory authorities to extend all such statutory benefits to the assesses.

  Conclusion - Reply filed by the appellant to the SCN before the Original Authority has been conveniently ignored by both the authorities.

  The impugned order is set aside and the matter is remanded to the file of Adjudicating Authority who shall afford reasonable opportunities of being heard to the appellant and then pass speaking order as per law - Appeal allowed by way of remand.

  ---

• 2025 (5) TMI 773
  

  Short/non payment of tax - booking of flats on comparison of ST-03 Returns with Ledger/ Chart provided by party - booking of Commercial Property as tax not payable in ST-03 Returns - Job Receipts for the F.Y. 2011-12 & 2013-14 in the capacity of “Contractor” for services provided to Builder/Developer/Promoter under “Construction of Complex Service - Rent received - amount received for Forfeiture of Guest House booking amount under the head “Mandap keeper service” - amount received under the head “Commission” in Ledger account for the F.Y. 2010-11 & 2013-14 is taxable under “Business Auxiliary Service” (BAS) - “Legal Services” under reverse charge mechanism (RCM).

  Short payment of tax on booking of flats on comparison of ST-03 Returns with Ledger/ Chart provided by party and Non- payment of tax on booking of Commercial Property as tax not payable in ST-03 Returns - HELD THAT:- As per the explanation, the activity of construction is to be considered a service provided to the prospective buyer. In such a case, the time of supply of services would be in accordance with the construction activity itself. Hence, if a project is completed before 01.07.2010; then no construction service is provided by the Builder to the prospective buyer anymore. Instead, it is merely a sale of the building to the buyer. For an activity to fall under the Explanation to Section 65(105)(zzq) & (zzzh), there must be a construction which was ongoing even after 01.07.2010 and there must be consideration received with respect to such construction after 01.07.2010. A construction project completed to any extent before 01.07.2010 would not automatically fall under the Explanation which has not been provided any retrospective effect by the Statute. Since the service of construction to prospective buyers only becomes taxable after 01.07.2010, then it stands to reason that only the portion of construction completed after such date would become taxable under service tax regime.

  On perusal of the “Completion Certificates” provided by the Appellants with respect to the completed and on-going projects in the relevant period, which in our view, serve as sufficient proof of the degree of completion of the projects. Since the service tax on the amount vis-a-vis the uncompleted portion of the project as on 01.07.2010 has been paid by the Appellant in its ST-03 Returns, there are no merit in the first allegation made in the impugned Order. Thus, the demand of Rs.92,74,325/- under the head “Construction of Residential Complex” is set aside.

  Non-payment of service tax on “Job Receipts” for the F.Y. 2011-12 & 2013-14 in the capacity of “Contractor” for services provided to Builder/Developer/Promoter under “Construction of Complex Service” - HELD THAT:- Unlike what is mentioned by the Adjudicating Authority, the Appellant has deposited service tax amounting to Rs.12,57,758/- in the present case. Additionally, since such service tax has been deposited with the Government Exchequer vide Challans, the same must be considered and mere non reporting in ST-03 Returns cannot be the basis to disregard the same. Accordingly, the service tax has been paid by the Appellant on the amount received from M/s Jaypee in F.Y. 2013-14 and the demand confirmed with respect to the same is unwarranted. With respect to the amount of Rs.9,84,09,499/- received from M/s Jaypee in F.Y. 2011-12, the Appellant contends that such amount received against R/A Bill No.38 pertains to work which was completed back in 2004-05 and as such would not be taxable under Service tax regime.

  The amount received by the Appellant in FY 2011-12 from M/s Jaypee pertains to Work Contract services provided to M/s Jaypee pertaining to work completed in F.Y. 2004-05, and as such, would not be taxable under Service tax regime. Thus, the demand of Rs.1,15,04,184/- under the head “Construction of Complex” service is set aside

  Short payment of service tax on Rent received - HELD THAT:- The Adjudicating Authority has confirmed demand of tax short paid amounting to Rs.2,19,092/- on rent received in relevant period as shown in Balance Sheet in contrast with Rent reported in ST-3 Returns. It is observed that no submissions have been made nor any reasoning provided by the Appellant in this regard either in the Appeal or in the defence reply. Accordingly, the demand of Rs.2,19,092/- is to be upheld.

  Non-payment of service tax on amount received for Forfeiture of Guest House booking amount under the head “Mandap keeper service” - HELD THAT:- The Revenue has proposed demand of service tax on such amount under the head of Business Auxiliary Service BAS in the SCN. Subsequently, the Adjudicating Authority had confirmed the demand in the impugned Order under the head of “Mandap keeper service” - When an allegation of taxability has been made in the SCN under one head, the same cannot be classified under a different head in the impugned Order. In light of the same, the present demand of service tax on amount of Rs.2,25,000/- under the head of “Mandap keeper Service” is beyond the scope of SCN and as such is unsustainable. Accordingly, the sameis set aside.

  Non-payment of service tax on an amount received under the head “Commission” in their Ledger account for the F.Y. 2010-11 & 2013-14 is taxable under “Business Auxiliary Service” (BAS) - HELD THAT:- A strict interpretation of exemption notification refers to strictly following the words of the notification. It does not refer to artificially adding imaginary requirements not provided in the Notification to narrow its scope. There is no ambiguity and no room for additional conditions to be imagined and read in Clause 29(c) of Notification No.25/2012, neither does the Department has the power to narrow the scope of the exemption. In light of the same, since Notification No.25/2012 does not provide for any requirement of an AMFI/ARN No., the sole contention of Department is unsustainable. Consequently, the commission received for providing services in capacity of a mutual fund agent to an asset management company is exempt under Service tax regime.

  Short payment of service tax under the head “Legal Services” under reverse charge mechanism (RCM) - HELD THAT:- The concerned legal expenses do not refer to payment to Advocates/Advocate firm and as such would not be taxable under Reverse Charge mechanism. Accordingly, the demand confirmed in impugned Order set aside.

  Conclusion - The demands confirmed on the basis of incomplete or misconstrued evidence, incorrect interpretation of the taxability period, procedural improprieties in changing service categories post SCN, and misapplication of reverse charge provisions are unsustainable. Consequently, all such demands and penalties are set aside, while the uncontested demand on rent short payment is upheld.

  Appeal allowed in part.

  ---

• 2025 (5) TMI 652
  

  Maintainability of the present appeal in view of Section 35G and 35L of the Central Excise Act, 1944, which applies in respect of service tax cases as well - Levy of service tax - transfer of development rights - time limitation - HELD THAT:- This Court had an occasion to consider a similar matter in Commissioner of CGST and Central Excise Delhi South v. M/s Spicejet Ltd. [2024 (12) TMI 1408 - DELHI HIGH COURT] wherein this Court held that 'In view of the above decisions and considering the nature of issues that have been decided vide the order dated 31st March, 2016, passed by the Commissioner of Service Tax as also the impugned order of the CESTAT dated 3rd July, 2023, this Court is of the opinion that an appeal against the said impugned order would lie, in terms of Section 35L of the Central Excise Act, 1944, to the Hon’ble Supreme Court.'

  The present appeal would not be maintainable before this Court. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed with liberty to the Appellant to approach the Hon’ble Supreme Court - In the facts and circumstances of this case, time to file the appeal is extended till 15th July, 2025.

  ---

• 2025 (5) TMI 651
  

  Time limitation for issuance of SCN - impugned order has been passed after about three years from the date of issuance of SCN - HELD THAT:- In the case of M/s Kanak Automobiles [2024 (4) TMI 1223 - PATNA HIGH COURT], the learned co-ordinate Bench of this Court has, though, held that the period prescribed in clause (b) of sub-section (4B) of Section 73 of the Finance Act cannot be taken as an absolute mandate that the proceeding should be completed within one year from the notice but at the same time, the learned co-ordinate Bench has recorded“ but it requires the statutory authority to take all possible steps, so to do and conclude the proceedings within an year. No steps were taken in the entire one year period, which results in the frustration of the goal of expediency as required statutorily. We hence find that the proceedings cannot be continued.”

  The judgment of the learned co-ordinate Bench in M/s Kanak Automobiles was challenged before the Hon’ble Supreme Court, however, the Hon’ble Supreme Court refused to interfere with the judgment of the learned co-ordinate Bench in M/s Kanak Automobiles and held that it is not laying down a law but considering the quantum involved, the Hon’ble Supreme Court was not inclined to interfere with the judgment.

  This Court has taken a view that whether it was possible to determine the service tax within the period of one year or not is required to be determined in the facts of the case. In the case of M/s Power Spectrum [2025 (4) TMI 1468 - PATNA HIGH COURT], this Court had occasion to consider a similar plea where the Order-in-Original was passed after five years of the issuance of ‘SCN’.

  Since it is noticed from the records that there was no movement at all of the file for two years and the matter remained pending at the end of the taxing authority, there being no reason shown that it was not possible to determine the liability of the petitioner within the period of one year, the present case would be covered by the judgments of this Court.

  Conclusion - The statutory limitation under sub-section (4B) of Section 73 of the Finance Act, 1994 is mandatory and requires the authority to complete adjudication within one year from issuance of the SCN, unless valid reasons exist.

  Application allowed.

  ---

• 2025 (5) TMI 650
  

  Levy of service tax - distribution of pre-paid and post-paid cellular connections (SIM cards) by a telecom service provider - HELD THAT:- The issue stands covered by a series of orders of this Court in R. VENKATARAMANAN VERSUS OFFICE OF THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, KARAIKAL, BHARAT SANCHAR NIGAM LIMITED (BSNL), KUMBAKONAM. [2020 (1) TMI 1724 - MADRAS HIGH COURT], THE COMMISSIONER, OFFICE OF THE COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE AND SERVICE TAX, BHARAT SANCHAR NIGAM LIMITED (BSNL) [2020 (1) TMI 1725 - MADRAS HIGH COURT], wherein it was held that 'Since the Petitioner has cases in their favour, the Petitioner should approach the First Respondent for Adjudication of Show Cause Notice under the Finance Act by citing the decisions'.

  It may also be relevant to refer to the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd., vs. The State of Andhra Pradesh Revenue Department [2023 (5) TMI 815 - SC ORDER], wherein it was held that 'It was held by High Court that the transactions relating to telephone sets, modems and caller IDs instruments are subject to sales tax levy'.

  In view thereof, the petitioner would submit his reply to show cause notice within four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Respondents shall pass orders taking into account the objections filed and after affording the petitioner a reasonable opportunity of hearing, in accordance with law and bearing in mind the above judgments.

  Petition disposed off.

  ---

• 2025 (5) TMI 649
  

  Non-service of SCN - SCN was not served on Appellant in the manner prescribed and was delivered to them on e-mail - Recovery of service tax with interest and penalty - HELD THAT:- Taking the note of the prevailing situation at the time the Hon’ble Supreme Court has by the order in IN RE : COGNIZANCE FOR EXTENSION OF LIMITATION [2021 (1) TMI 261 - SC ORDER] provided for delivery of the notices, summons etc., through electronic media and e-mail. Article 141 of the Constitution of India provides that 'Law declared by Supreme Court to be binding on all courts.—The law declared by the Supreme Court shall be binding on all courts within the territory of India.'

  It is found that Appellant to whom the show cause notice was delivered by e-mail and who have responded to the same and attended the personal hearing etc., cannot take the stand that there was no service of the notice in the prescribed manner during the period of COVID.

  There are no merits in the submissions made by the Appellant in the appeal - appeal dismissed.

  ---

• 2025 (5) TMI 648
  

  Levy of service tax - additional amounts received by the appellant towards transportation and consequent insurance booked by them under the head “Other Operational Income and Freight and Insurance Income” - HELD THAT:- The issue has been decided in the case of the appellant in DY. GENERAL MANAGER (FINANCE) BHARAT HEAVY ELECTRICALS LTD. VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS & CENTRAL EXCISE, BHOPAL [2024 (11) TMI 1285 - CESTAT NEW DELHI], where the issue has been decided in favour of the appellant that no service tax is leviable on the amount towards facilitation of freight and insurance.

  Appeal allowed.

  ---

• 2025 (5) TMI 647
  

  Rejection of cross objections on the ground that neither Section 84 nor Section 85 of the Act empowered the filing of such cross objections - time limitation - penalty.

  HELD THAT:- A similar issue came up for consideration by the Tribunal as can be seen from its decision in Eveready Industries India Ltd v CCE, Meerut, [2011 (9) TMI 533 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI], where the matter was remanded to Commissioner (Appeals) for decision on merits. Ordinarily the same course of action ssholud have been adopted, but the facts and circumstances of this case merits intervention.

  Indisputably, the appellant had not conceded the matter on merits and thus the payment made was only to give quietus to the issue. The Department chose to prefer an appeal, against non-imposition of penalty. Further, the Appellate Authority, having invited the appellant to file cross-objection, then could not have decided the matter without looking into the cross objections so filed upon its invitation. This Tribunal in Eveready Industries India Ltd v CCE, Meerut, has already held that the cross-objections filed by the appellants are maintainable. As such the Commissioner Appeals has committed an egregious error in not looking into the merits of the cross-objection and instead dismissing it without consideration.

  Time limitation - HELD THAT:- The Show Cause Notice itself is barred by limitation. Apart from merely stating that the appellant had suppressed facts with intention to evade payment of duty, no evidence of wilful misstatement or suppression with intent to evade payment of duty has been let in in the show cause notice. As such, the invoking of extended period itself was untenable, as it is a settled position in law that evidence of a positive or deliberate act of wilful misstament or suppression of facts with intent to evade payment of duty ought to be brought out in the notice.

  Penalty - HELD THAT:- There is no reason given as to why the documents submitted by the appellants are not enough, without stating what more was required from the appellant. The appellant is entitled to the Cenvat credit that stood denied in the Order-in-Original No.96/2010 dated 31.12.2010. The Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka has in its decision in CST v. Motor World, [2012 (6) TMI 69 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT] held that when the assessing authority, in its discretion has held that no penalty is leviable, by virtue of Section 80 of the Act, the revisional authority cannot invoke its jurisdiction and impose penalty for the first time. As such, the imposition of penalty in the impugned OIA is also unsustainable.

  Conclusion - i) The cross-objections filed by the appellants are maintainable. ii) The Show Cause Notice itself is barred by limitation. iii) When the assessing authority, in its discretion has held that no penalty is leviable, by virtue of Section 80 of the Act, the revisional authority cannot invoke its jurisdiction and impose penalty for the first time.

  The appeal is allowed in toto.

  ---

• 2025 (5) TMI 646
  

  Levy of service tax - 2% additional amount charged over actual electricity expenses reimbursed by the appellant to its tenant - HELD THAT:- The Honourable Supreme Court in UOI vs Intercontinental Consultants and Technocrats Pvt. Ltd., [2018 (3) TMI 357 - SUPREME COURT], affirmed the decision of the Delhi High Court in Intercontinental Consultants & Technocrats Pvt Ltd v UOI, [2012 (12) TMI 150 - DELHI HIGH COURT], wherein Rule 5(1) of the Service Tax Valuation Rules, 2006 which provided for inclusion of expenditures or costs incurred by the service provider in the course of providing taxable services, in the value of such taxable services, was stuck down as ultra vires Section 66 and Section 67 of the Act and as travelling beyond the scope of the said sections. As such, with the very statutory edifice for raising the demand having been demolished, the findings in the impugned OIA are wholly untenable thereby rendering the OIA unsustainable.

  Conclusion - Electricity is goods chargeable to duty under Central Excise Tariff as well as under the State Value Added Tax Act, electricity therefore would amount to 'sale of goods' and not 'supply of service'.

  Appeal allowed.

  ---

• 2025 (5) TMI 645
  

  Refund of service tax paid on development charges collected by SIPCOT - rejection on the ground that the refund claim was filed with a delay of 31 days, beyond the time-limit stipulated under Section 104 of Chapter V of the Finance Act, 1994 - rejection also on the ground of unjust enrichment.

  Whether the claim should have been filed by SIPCOT who had deposited the service tax with the Government? - HELD THAT:- In JSW Dharmatar Port [2018 (12) TMI 1118 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT] the Hon’ble Bombay High Court held that, the time taken by the Ministry in processing and granting certificate under Section 103 of the Act to enable the assessee to file refund claim must be ignored for the purpose of computing the limitation for making refund application - it is found that in JSW Dharmatar Port, cited by the appellant, itself the Hon’ble High Court held that the limitation prescribed is mandatory. It further stated that Section 103 of the Finance Act, 1994 (which is similar to Section 104 as per which the refund has been filed in this case), is a complete mechanism for recognition of exemption, refund of the tax so exempted with retrospective effect and the mechanism for claiming such refund. Such limitation period cannot be interpreted as merely directory, particularly when subsection (3) in addition to providing the period of limitation, overrides any other provisions of the chapter, which may be to the contrary - the judgments cited by the appellant are distinguished and do not support their case.

  Since the amount paid was not ‘service tax’ it ought to be automatically refunded to the Appellant without filing a refund claim - HELD THAT:- All refund claims except that of an unconstitutional levy must be filed and adjudicated under the refund provisions of the Central Excises and Salt Act 1944 (as made applicable in Service Tax matters also) or the Customs Act 1962, as the case may be.

  Once the amount is collected as Service Tax and is deposited to Government any refund can be claimed only as per the provisions of the said Act. As stated in the Mafatlal industries judgment [1996 (12) TMI 50 - SUPREME COURT], even a finding regarding the invalidity of a levy need not automatically result in a direction for a refund of all collections thereof made earlier.

  As per Section 17(1)(c) of the Limitation Act, the period of limitation in an application filed for obtaining relief from the consequences of a mistake would begin from the moment the applicant has discovered the mistake - HELD THAT:- The Finance Act 1994, is a self-contained Code exhaustive of the matters dealt with therein. The purpose of the Act is to levy a tax on service, assess and collect the same. It follows, therefore, that all the provisions contained in the Act have been designed with the object of achieving that purpose - the Limitation Act is not applicable to the Finance Act 1994 and hence the appellants plea on this account fails.

  It is a well-accepted norm of judicial discipline that a Bench of lesser quorum / strength should follow the view taken by Bench of larger quorum / strength, in a case whose ratio covers the legal issue involved in the impugned matter.

  Conclusion - i) The Finance Bill, 2017 was passed on 01.04.2017 hence the last date for filing the refund claim was 30.09.2017. As the appellant filed the refund claim on 31.10.2017, which is beyond 6 months' time limit prescribed under Section 104(3) of the FA, 2017, it is hit by time bar and thus, the respondent has correctly rejected the refund claim as time barred and the impugned order is upheld. ii) The appellant has borne the ultimate incidence of the tax, and not the Trust, who is the eligible claimant of the refund and is not barred from claiming the same.

  Appeal rejected.

  ---

• 2025 (5) TMI 644
  

  Claim of interest on delayed refund - rate of interest - relevant date of interest - HELD THAT:- The amount paid by the appellant is in nature of deposit only for that the provisions of Section 11B of the Central Excise Act are not applicable. Consequently, interest prescribed under Section 11BB is also not applicable.

  In view of this following the decision in the case of Parle Agro Pvt. Ltd. [2021 (5) TMI 870 - CESTAT ALLAHABAD], it is held that appellant is entitled to claim interest at the rate of 12% - The same view was taken by the Tribunal in the case of Gajendra Singh Sankhla & others [2025 (5) TMI 482 - CESTAT NEW DELHI]. In that case also after relying the various judicial pronouncement, this Tribunal came to the conclusion that as the provisions of Section 11B are not applicable, consequently the appellant is entitled to claim interest at the rate of 12%.

  From which date the appellant is entitled to claim interest - HELD THAT:- The said issue has been examined by this Tribunal in case of Riba Textile Ltd. vs. Commissioner of CE & ST, Panchkula [2020 (2) TMI 602 - CESTAT CHANDIGARH] where it was held that 'Claim for refund in the present case was filed on 6th January, 2016 which was returned and again filed on 19th April, 2017. Section 142 of the Act deals with miscellaneous transitional provisions including the claim for refund filed by any person before, on or after the appointed day for refund of any amount of Cenvat Credit, duty, tax interest or any other amount paid under the exciting law.' - the appellant is entitled to claim interest from the date of deposit i.e, 19.01.2011 till its realization.

  Conclusion - i) Amounts deposited under protest during the pendency of adjudication are deposits, not payments of service tax or duty. The provisions of Section 11B (interest from refund claim date) and Section 11BB (interest at 6%) do not apply to such deposits. ii) Interest on delayed refunds of such deposits is payable at the rate of 12% per annum. iii) Interest entitlement arises from the date of deposit, not from the date of filing the refund claim.

  Appeal disposed off.

  ---

• 2025 (5) TMI 643
  

  Exemption from service tax - educational courses offered by the appellant qualifying as non-commercial educational services - Management Consultancy Service - Event Management Service - HELD THAT:- It is a fact on record that the Show Cause is an outcome of search and seizure, investigation by the DGCEI, in the premises of EIILM having no registration with Service Tax Department. In the impugned order, the ld. adjudicating authority observes that the taxability, on activities of EIILM, as alleged, were admitted and agreed by EIILM on the day of search and submitted postdated cheque for 1 Crore but later denied allegation along with withdrawal of the cheques issued. The fact is recorded in statements of the authorised personnels of EIILM as well as incorporated in the show cause notice.

  Malvika Foundation is a public charitable Trust and during the impugned period, ran EIILM as an educational institution offering MBA courses from the Punjab Technical University (PTU) and the West Bengal University of Technology (WBUT). The PTU is recognized by UGC and degrees/diploma/certificates as issued by PTU are recognized in law. The PTU has appointed EIILM as the learning centre. Similarly, WBUT is also recognized by UGC and approved EIILM.

  The matter needs to be remanded back to the adjudicating authority for the purpose of examining the documentary evidence available with the appellant and thereafter to arrive at a conclusion as to whether the said courses offered by the appellant are recognised by the UGC and degrees issued to that effect are recognised by approved Universities or not.

  Conclusion - i) The adjudicating authority shall examine all the evidences submitted by the appellant so as to ascertain as to whether the courses offered are recognised by the UGC or not and whether the degrees/certificates issued are recognised by approved Universities or not. ii) The Service Tax liabilities of the appellant (M/s. EIILM Foundation) and M/s. Malvika Foundation are to be categorically ascertained and the demand pertaining to each, if any, is to be determined separately.

  Appeal disposed off by way of remand.

  ---

• 2025 (5) TMI 575
  

  Refund of service tax paid on works contract services under Notification No. 09/2016-ST dated 01.03.2016 and Section 102 of the Finance Act, 2016 - time limitation - contract was awarded on 11.03.2015, i.e., after the stipulated cut-off date of 01.03.2015 - HELD THAT:- The limiting factor for finalizing the contract in this case is the date 01.03.2015. The argument of the appellant has no force that the last date for filing tender was 10.02.2015 and they have filed the tender before that date and therefore, they have fulfilled the conditions of Notification number 09/2016-ST dated 01.03.2016 read with Section 102 of the Finance Act, 2016. In fact the contract was awarded to the appellant on 11.03.2015, therefore, they are not eligible to get the benefit of Notification No. 9/2016-ST dated 01.03.2016 as prescribed in the notification.

  The argument of the appellant also cannot be accepted that their financial bid was qualified on 19.02.2015 therefore, it can be treated as deemed contract and it can be considered having been allotted to them on 19.02.2015 which is earlier to 01.03.2015. There is also no substance in the plea of the appellant that the contract falls under the provisions of Notification No. 09/2016-ST dated 01.03.2016. Accordingly, the learned adjudicating authority has rightly rejected the refund claim filed by the appellant and the appeal has been rightly dismissed by the learned Commissioner (Appeals). Therefore, the impugned order passed by the learned Commissioner is liable to be upheld and the appeal is liable to be dismissed.

  Conclusion - The appellant's refund claim is correctly rejected as the contract was awarded on 11.03.2015, beyond the prescribed date of 01.03.2015.

  Appeal dismissed.

  ---

• 2025 (5) TMI 574
  

  Rejection of refund claim of 50% of service tax paid by the service recipient - appellant has not produced any evidence to the effect of payment of said service tax by the service recipient - HELD THAT:- The appellant produced the work orders showing that the service tax inclusive of the payment of service rendered by the appellant and the service recipient had deducted 50% of the service tax which is payable by the service recipient under reverse charge mechanism from the running bill of the appellant and it is a fact on record that the activity undertaken by the appellant is not liable to service tax and service tax paid by the appellant by mistake of law, therefore, time limit prescribed under Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944 is not applicable to the facts of the case as held by the Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in the case of Commissioner of Central Excise versus KVR Construction [2012 (7) TMI 22 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT]. In that circumstances, the Cross Objections filed by Revenue are contrary to the law, therefore, the said are not acceptable.

  Rate of interest - HELD THAT:- The said issue has examined by the Tribunal in the case of Gajendra Singh Sankhla versus Commissioner of CGST, Jodhpur (Raj.) [2025 (5) TMI 482 - CESTAT NEW DELHI]. In view of the decision of this Tribunal in the case of Gajendra Singh Sankhla, wherein this Tribunal observed 'the appellant are entitled interest @ 12% on delayed refunds.'

  Conclusion - The appellants are entitled for refund of service tax paid by them was under mistake of law, therefore, the appellants are entitled for refund claim along with interest @ 12% as provisions of Section 11B and 11BB of the Act are not applicable.

  Appeal allowed.

  ---

• 2025 (5) TMI 573
  

  Time barred SCN or not - suppression of facts or not - liability of appellant to discharge service tax under the reverse charge mechanism (RCM) on Manpower Recruitment Services and Rent-a-Cab Services, despite the service providers having already paid service tax - HELD THAT:- The learned Commissioner (Appeals) has considered each of the demands raised in the show cause notice and has given categorical, reasoned findings based on the law and the case laws. Learned Commissioner (Appeals) finds that extended period is not invokable as no evidence has been adduced in the show cause notice to substantiate the allegation of suppression of facts which intend to evade payment of service tax; the entire demand was raised on the basis of records maintained by the appellant which were provided to the audit.

  The learned Commissioner (Appeals) has rightly observed, relying on the Hon’ble Supreme Court’s decision in the case of Chemphor Drugs [1989 (2) TMI 116 - SUPREME COURT], that mere inaction are failure on the part of the assessee does not suffice to invoke the extended period; a conscious are deliberate withholding the information, which the appellants were aware of, was required.

  As the appeal fails squarely on limitation, the other issues on merit do not require any discussion and findings, more so, when we have endorsed findings, of the impugned order in this regard.

  The appeal is rejected.

  ---

• 2025 (5) TMI 490
  

  Non-payment of service tax - non-service of notices - SCN issued based on surmise and solely on the basis of data relating to third party received from Income Tax Department - violation of principles of natural justice - HELD THAT:- This Court finds force in the submission of Ms. Kananbala Roy Choudhury, learned Advocate that the Order-in-Original dated 03.07.2024 could not be challenged before the appropriate forum in terms of remedy available under the Finance Act, 1994. Since the Advocate for the Petitioner as well as the Senior Standing Counsel for the Department conceded that the Order-in-Original is served on the Advocate for the Petitioner on 28.03.2025, in view of existence of alternative remedy under the Finance Act, 1994, the Petitioner is at liberty to assail the said order before the appropriate forum within a period of three weeks from date.

  In view of the fact that the Petitioner has been granted two weeks from today to approach the appropriate forum to ventilate its grievance invoking alternative remedy, the recovery notice dated 19.03.2025 insofar as it relates to the present Petitioner (Serial No.3 of Annexure-4) is concerned stands vacated.

  Petition disposed off.

  ---

• 2025 (5) TMI 489
  

  Classification of service - Work Contract Services - availing abatement of 67% on the total amount received by treating the service as Work Contract Service - HELD THAT:- On going through the work order placed by the appellant on record and as per the work orders placed by the appellant only one work order No. 511-1400/SGTPS/W/IMD-I/W/Ord-54/733 dated 19.10.2013 material cost is involved Rs. 1,98,792/- on which CST @2% has been paid by the appellant and the material cost is shown as Rs. 3,97,584/-. On the other contracts produced by the appellant and placed on record does not show any element of supply. In fact all other contracts are periodical maintenance contract and no material is involved on those contracts which are evident from the bills raised by the appellant. Vide Bill No. IIE/14-15/05 dated 09.06.2014, Bill No. IIE/14-15/09 dated 15.07.2014, Bill No. IIE/14-15/05 dated 09.06.2014, Bill No. IIE/13-14/30 dated 30.01.2014, Bill No. IIE/13-14/18 dated 27.09.2013 and Bill No. IIE/13-14/14 dated 04.09.2013, all these bills shows that the appellant has provided only service no material is involved. Therefore, the contention of the appellant that they have providing works contract service is not acceptable except the agreement dated 19.10.2013. On the said contract, the value of material cost and has already been by worked out i.e. Rs. 3,97,584/-, therefore, on the amount of cost of material i.e. Rs. 3,97,584/-, no service tax is payable by the appellant.

  Accordingly, demand on the said amount calculating @ 12.36% reduced by Rs. 49,141/-. Rest of the demand confirmed in the impugned order is payable by the appellant along with interest as said amount has not been paid by the appellant till yet. Therefore, the penalty equivalent to said amount is also payable by the appellant.

  Conclusion - i) The contention of the appellant that they have providing works contract service is not acceptable except the agreement dated 19.10.2013. ii) On the said contract, the value of material cost and has already been by worked out i.e. Rs. 3,97,584/-, therefore, on the amount of cost of material i.e. Rs. 3,97,584/-, no service tax is payable by the appellant. iii) Rest of the demand confirmed in the impugned order is payable by the appellant along with interest as said amount has not been paid by the appellant till yet. Therefore, the penalty equivalent to said amount is also payable by the appellant.

  Appeal disposed off.

  ---

1 ....131415161718192021........ 1578