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 481 to 500 of 31546 Records

• 2025 (4) TMI 764
  

  Taxability - provision of service - whether the consideration received by the appellant for the 'Technology Assistance' provided by their Research Center, from one of its Divisions can be considered as provision of service? - consideration received from M/s. Fosroc International Limited (FIL) to the appellant is liable for payment of service tax or the transaction can be considered as export of service or not - HELD THAT:- On going through the evidence produced by the appellant and as per the evidence available on record it is an admitted fact that the 'Forsoc Technology Center' (FTC) is a part and parcel of the appellant only. Moreover, the amount spent by the appellant for R&D activities of 'Forsoc Technology Center' (FTC) cannot form part of taxable value of the service in question said to have been paid to the holding company. The MOU between the appellant and the foreign company M/s. Fosroc International, Ltd., also clearly shows that the 'Forsoc Technology Center' (FTC) is part of the appellant and hence the demand for the period from April 2010 to March 2012 was set aside by the Appellate Authority and once the department accepted the finding in the above order, considering the rule of consistency, service tax is not payable for the subsequent periods, which are the impugned orders in the present 7(seven) appeals filed by the appellant. Fact being so, the impugned orders are not sustainable and need to be set aside.

  Conclusion - The amount spent by the appellant for R&D activities of 'Forsoc Technology Center' (FTC) cannot form part of taxable value of the service in question said to have been paid to the holding company.

  Appeal allowed.

  ---

• 2025 (4) TMI 763
  

  Levy of service tax - amounts received by the appellant as reimbursement towards advertisements can be considered as consideration for sales promotion activities done by the assessee for Maruthi Suzuki India Ltd. (MSIL) - invocation of extended period of limitation - HELD THAT:- From the facts, it is evident that there is no service provided by the appellant and there is no consideration received for rendering any service as alleged. If, MSIL reimburses the amount, which is attributed to their share of joint advertising for promotion of the business, same cannot be considered as service done by Appellant to demand service tax. The service is provided by third party and they are liable to make payment for such services.

  Invoking the extended period of limitation - penalty - HELD THAT:- It is found that there is no suppression of facts and considering the same, extended period of limitation and penalty is also unsustainable.

  Conclusion - i) The reimbursement for joint advertising activities does not constitute consideration for a taxable service, as no service was rendered by the appellant to MSIL. ii) There is no suppression of facts and considering the same, extended period of limitation and penalty is also unsustainable.

  Appeal allowed.

  ---

• 2025 (4) TMI 762
  

  Levy of service tax - transportation charges billed by the vendors for the supply of goods using their own vehicles under the category of Goods Transport Agency (GTA) services - HELD THAT:- Undisputedly, the appellant had received goods delivered as per the condition of purchase order by the vendors at the premises of the appellant. The appellant is purchasing goods from vendors on the basis of free on road delivery, wherein the ownership and the possession of the property in goods is transferred to the appellant only when the same are delivered at the warehouse / delivery point. There is no involvement of any Goods Transport Agency but the vendors themselves delivered the goods at the warehouse / delivery point of the appellant.

  Since no Goods Transport Agency is involved in the transportation of goods to the appellant and no consignment note has been issued for transportation of the goods by the vendors to the appellant, therefore, the demand of service tax from the appellant who reimbursed the transportation cost mentioned in the invoice of the vendors cannot be sustained. This view has been consistently held by the Tribunal in series of cases included the one R.K. GUPTA C/O. M/S. MANGALAM CEMENT LTD. VERSUS C.C.E., RAIPUR AND VICE-VERSA [2018 (6) TMI 1434 - CESTAT NEW DELHI], wherein it is observed 'Irrespective freight is shown separately in the invoice, the same cannot be considered as equivalent to the consignment note, which is the mandatory requirement of Section 65 (50b).'

  Conclusion - The appellant is not liable for service tax under the GTA category, and the impugned orders demanding tax are set aside.

  Appeal allowed.

  ---

• 2025 (4) TMI 691
  

  Availment of CENVAT Credit after laps of six months/one year during the relevant period - HELD THAT:- If the period permissible to issue show-cause-cum-demand notice is taken into consideration vis. a. vis. provision available under Section 73(1) of the Finance Act, 1994, it is ‘service of notice’, from which date computation of period of limitation is to be counted backward, and in so doing, there will be no hesitation on the part of this Bench to give a finding that for the period from April, 2013 to September, 2014, the demands are barred by limitation, though Appellant had also contested invocation of extended period on other justifiable grounds. Admittedly, Appellant had not shown in its periodic ST-3 Returns that it had adjusted the available CENVAT Credits towards discharge of Service Tax liability but every payment of balance tax that was made in cash was admittedly the exact differential amount between tax dues and CENVAT Credit utilised. This being the facts on record, there is no point as to why periodic showcause notices with invocation of extended period was to be issued which is not justifiable after issue of the first show-cause notice on the same ground. Be that as it may, this Tribunal is consistent in its finding that in such a scenario, if CENVAT Credit utilisation is properly reflected in the books of account of Assessee-Appellant and in other related documents, mere non-discloser of the same in ST-3 Returns would not permit the Respondent-Department to demand the same again and in carrying forward the judicial precedent set by this Tribunal.

  Conclusion - i) The demands for Service Tax for the periods 2013-14 and April 2014 to September 2014 are barred by limitation as per Section 73 of the Finance Act, 1994. ii) The Appellant's failure to reflect CENVAT Credit in the ST-3 Returns does not invalidate its utilization if properly documented in the books of account. iii) The Appellant's utilization of CENVAT Credit is permissible under the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004, despite non-reflection in the ST-3 Returns.

  The order passed by the Commissioner of CGST & CX, Thane is hereby modified to the extent of dropping the demand of Rs.8,51,206/- and Rs.19,01,040/- for the period 2013-14 and 2014 to June, 2017 respectively alongwith its corresponding interest and penalties including penalty of Rs.10,000/- imposed under Section 77 of the Finance Act, 1994 - Appeal allowed.

  ---

• 2025 (4) TMI 690
  

  Liability of appellant, a sub-contractor, to pay Service Tax for services rendered to the main contractor when the main contractor has already paid Service Tax on the entire value of the service - extended period of limitation - Levy of penalty - Demand of service tax on works contract service rendered by the appellant to M/s. DVC in their construction of store shed with CGI Sheet Roof and to M/s. Paharpur Cooling Towers Limited in their construction of Shuttering, Reinforcement and Concreting work - Demand confirmed @4.12% for the works contract service rendered.

  Liability of appellant, a sub-contractor, to pay Service Tax for services rendered to the main contractor when the main contractor has already paid Service Tax on the entire value of the service - HELD THAT:- The said issue has already been clarified by the Board vide Circular No. 96/7/2007-S.T. dated 23.08.2007 at Point No. 999.03/23-8-07, where it is clarified that even if the main contractor pays Service Tax on the full amount, the sub-contractor shall remain liable to pay Service Tax for the services rendered by them to the main contractor.

  Extended period of limitation - penalty - HELD THAT:- The entire issue is revenue neutral as the main contractor will be eligible to avail CENVAT Credit of the service tax paid by the sub-contractor. Thus, there is no intention to evade payment of Service Tax existing in this case. In these circumstances, the demand of Service Tax confirmed by invoking the extended period of limitation is not sustainable. Accordingly, the demand confirmed under this category is set aside by invoking the extended period of limitation and uphold the demand within the normal period. No penalty is imposable on the demand confirmed for the normal period of limitation.

  Demand of service tax on works contract service rendered by the appellant to M/s. DVC in their construction of store shed with CGI Sheet Roof and to M/s. Paharpur Cooling Towers Limited in their construction of Shuttering, Reinforcement and Concreting work - HELD THAT:- The appellant has agreed their service tax liability and raised the bill with Service Tax @ 4.12%. We agree with the submission of the appellant that they have rendered service with materials and hence service tax is liable to be paid @4.12% only for the works contract service rendered by them to the above clients and therefore, we hold that the appellant is liable to pay service tax @4.12 % claimed by them from their clients. In this regard, it is observed that even when they collected Service Tax in the bills raised, the appellant has filed 'nil' return. Thus, suppression of fact with intention to evade the tax stands established in this case and hence, the extended period has been rightly invoked to demand Service Tax on this issue - penalty also set aside.

  Demand confirmed @4.12% for the works contract service rendered - HELD THAT:- The appellant has claimed the service tax from the clients and not paid the same in the Government account. It is also found that the appellant has not filed the ST-3 returns and disclosed the taxable value received by them. Even when they filed returns, they have filed nil returns. Even for the period when they collected Service Tax from their customers, they have filed 'Nil' returns. This establishes the intention of the appellant to evade service tax. Since, the appellant has not paid the service tax claimed by them to the exchequer, the suppression of fact with intention to evade the tax is established. Accordingly, the appellant is liable for penalty equal to the Service Tax demand confirmed on this count.

  Conclusion - i) In respect of the work contract service rendered to M/s. Bridge and Roof Co. (I) Ltd. in West Bengal, the demand confirmed under this category is set aside by invoking the extended period of limitation and the demand within the normal period is confirmed. No penalty is imposable on the demand confirmed in this regard. ii) Regarding the works contract service rendered by the appellant to DVC and to Paharpur Cooling Towers Limited, it is held that the appellant is liable to pay service tax @4.12 %, which they have claimed from their clients. The appellant is liable to pay penalty equal to the tax confirmed in this regard. iii) For the purpose of quantifying the demand of service tax and penalty confirmed in this order, the matter is remanded back to the adjudicating authority.

  Appeal disposed off by way of remand.

  ---

• 2025 (4) TMI 667
  

  Entitlement to settle tax liability under the SABKA VISHWAS (Legacy Dispute Resolution) Scheme, 2019, particularly under the category of "arrears of tax." - correct filing of declaration under the "arrears category" of the Scheme - entitlement to the benefits of the Scheme, given the tax liability declared but not paid in the filed return - HELD THAT:- Though there is an apparent contradiction between the relief that is available to a Declarant under Section 124(1)(c)(i) and an embargo under Section 125(1)(f)(ii) of the Scheme, it has to be reconciled between those cases “where Returns have been filed” and those cases “where no Returns have been filed” - there is an embargo if a disclosure is made voluntarily where no Return is filed before 30.06.2019, no abatement/concession is permissible. However, where Returns have been filed on or before 30.06.2019 and “tax due” i.e., “amount of duty” as defined in Section 121(d) of the Scheme has not been paid in terms of Section 123(e) of the Scheme. Thus, the Petitioner was not entitled to file a Declaration in terms of Section 125(1)(f)(ii) of the Scheme.

  In this case, the Petitioner has wrongly filed the Declaration in Form SVLDRS-1 under the “arrears category” and sub-category “Declared in the Return but not paid”. The Petitioner has deliberately filed the Declaration in Form SVLDRS-1 under the “voluntary disclosure” and thus misled the system. It is also incoceivable, as to how both “arrears category” and the subcategory “Declared in the Return but not paid” can go together? There is no scope for alchemy between the two under the Scheme.

  As per Section 124(1)(c)(i) of the Scheme where the “tax dues” are relatable to an “amount in arrears”, the relief available to a Declarant under the Scheme was to be calculated at 60% of the tax dues. In other words, on 40% of “amount in arrears” as defined in Clause (c) to Section 121 of the Scheme was payable by a Declarant for settling the dispute under the Scheme - In this case, no amount was paid by the petitioner at an earlier stage. If the Petitioner wanted to pay under “arrears category”, the Petitioner was required to pay 40% of the tax amount declared in ST-3 Return filed on 05.06.2018 in terms of Section 124(1)(c)(i) of the Scheme. Thus, the tax that was payable by the Petitioner under the Scheme would have been Rs. 74,436.20/- being 40% of Rs. 1,86,158/- and not Rs. 29,706/- on 40% of Rs. 74,266/-.

  Since the Declaration that was filed in Form SVLDRS-1 is actually a Declaration filed on account of “voluntary disclosure”, the Petitioner is neither entitled to any concession in terms of Section 125(1)(f)(ii) of the Scheme nor entitled to file such Declaration under Section 125(1)(f)(ii) of the Scheme - The declaration in Form SVLDRS-1 that was filed by the Petitioner in the “arrears category” is contrary to the tax admitted by the Petitioner in ST-3 Return filed on 05.06.2018 as the Petitioner had declared the tax due as Rs. 74,266.72/-. It is contrary to the admitted tax liability of Rs. 1,36,158/- in the ST-3 Return filed on 05.06.2018.

  The fact that the Petitioner had resiled from the admitted liability in ST-3 Return dated 05.06.2018 while filing the Declaration in Form SVLDRS- 1 dated 13.01.2020 also indicates that the Petitioner was not entitled to any relief under the Scheme. Since the Form SVLDRS-1 was also actuated by incorrect materials furnished by the Petitioner in Form SVLDRS-1 dated 13.01.2020, the Respondents were entitled to conclude that the Declaration filed in Form SVLDRS-1 was under “voluntary disclosure” and therefore, entitled to invoke the power under Section 129(2)(c) of the Scheme - Since the Petitioner has filed incorrect declaration in Form SVLDRS- 1 on 13.01.2020 which was acted upon and has resulted in issuance of an erroneous Discharge Certificate in Form SVLDRS-4 on 19.01.2020. The power to rectify the mistake need not be exercised by the Department as the Declaration filed by the Petitioner was contrary to admitted tax liability in ST-3 Return dated 05.06.2018. Thus, the Discharge Certificate in Form SVLDRS- 4 dated 19.01.2020 cannot be said to have attained finality as the Declaration filed under the aforesaid Scheme was a Declaration filed under “voluntary disclosure” and not under “arrears category”.

  Since the incorrect particulars were furnished by the Petitioner in Form SVLDRS-1 dated 13.01.2020 and the Declaration filed was not to be entertained, the Department was entitled to invoke power under Section 129(2)(c) of the Scheme as per which, in case of a “voluntary disclosure” where any material particulars furnished in the Declaration is subsequently found to be false, within a period of one year of issue of the Discharge Certificate, it shall be presumed that the Declaration was never made and the proceeding under the applicable indirect tax enactment shall be instituted.

  Conclusion - The Petitioner's declaration under the Scheme was not valid under the "arrears" category. The Petitioner was not entitled to any relief under the Scheme due to the false particulars furnished in the declaration. The Discharge Certificate was not conclusive, and the Respondents were entitled to proceed with recovery actions.

  Petition dismissed.

  ---

• 2025 (4) TMI 632
  

  Levy of service tax - supply of tangible goods service - fixed facility charges collected by the appellant for supply of tanks for storing the liquid gases - HELD THAT:- The very same issue for the previous period from May 2008 to March 2009, has come up for consideration before this Tribunal and has been decided in the appellants favour in the case of M/s. Inox Air Products Ltd v The Commissioner of GST & Central Excise, Puducherry Commissionerate [2023 (6) TMI 849 - CESTAT CHENNAI] where it was held that 'During the disputed period, the appellant has been discharging excise duty on the FFC which is not disputed by the department. Since it is also clarified by the Board in the appellant’s own case that the said charges have to be included in the transaction value for payment of excise duty, we find no reason to hold that FFC charges are in the nature of consideration received by appellant for providing supply of tangible goods. Relevant Board circular is binding on the department.'

  Conclusion - The service tax demand on the FFC is not sustainable.

  Appeal allowed.

  ---

• 2025 (4) TMI 571
  

  Classification of service - Erection and Commissioning Service or Works Contract Service - exemption under N/N. 11/2010-ST, 32/2010-ST, and 45/2010-ST. - Invocation of extended period of limitation - penalty.

  Classification of the services received by the Appellant - HELD THAT:- Section 65A(1) provides that classification of taxable services shall be determined according to the terms of the sub-clauses of clause (105) of section 65. Thus, sub clause (zzzza) of Section clause (105) of Section 65 specifying taxable services of works contract has been aptly applied by the adjudicating authority while classifying the services of the consortium rendered to the appellant - what emanates from the LOI is that the activities of designing and drawing and model test, inland transportation etc., are bundled as ancillary services in their entrustment to the consortium to be rendered by the consortium to the appellant in the course of execution of the composite works contract by the consortium. Since the services of works contract provide the essential character to the entire gamut of services provided by the consortium to the appellant, the adjudicating authority has rightly found that the consortium is rendering works contract service to the appellant and the appellant is liable under Section 66A to pay service tax on the entire amount of contract under the category of “works contract service”.

  The findings of the Adjudicating Authority in the impugned order classifying the activities of the foreign companies while executing the EPC contract for the appellant under ‘Works Contract Service’, applying the provisions of Section 65A of the Finance Act, 1994, warrants no interference and is accordingly upheld.

  Whether the services in question are exempt under the Notifications No. 11/2010-ST, 32/2010-ST, and 45/2010-ST - HELD THAT:- These notifications applied to services related to already generated electricity, not to the EPC contract services provided by the consortium, which were prerequisites for electricity generation.

  The CBEC Circular No.131/13/2010 ST dated 07.12.2010 merely states in the context of supply of electricity meters for hire that the said activity is an essential activity having direct and close nexus with transmission and distribution of electricity, which is understandable as such electricity meters are used for measuring the electricity that is generated, transmitted and distributed and has no application in the instant case.

  The notifications cannot be given a stretched interpretation to bring the works contract services of the consortium of foreign suppliers rendered to the appellant, within the ambit of the aforementioned notifications. The benefit of the aforesaid notifications sought to be claimed are not available to the appellant.

  Invocation of Extended Period of Limitation - HELD THAT:- Although, from the documents it is evident that the appellant was aware of the concept of works contract and works contract tax and had considered the same in the light of the TNGST and CST regime while arranging the tax matters, dehors the fact whether such arrangement was accepted by the State tax authorities or not, nevertheless, the fact remains that there did prevail a lot of confusion regarding the coverage of services that had the characteristics of works contract upon which the assessee had discharged service tax under different classification of service in the case of ongoing works contract that commenced prior to 01-06-2007. The CBEC Circular No. 128/10/2010-S.T., dated 24-8-2010 concedes the factum of existence of such confusions/disputes - When the assessee entertains a bonafide belief that it is not liable to tax due to issues of interpretational nature, the extended period of limitation cannot be invoked and hence the demand made on the appellant is sustainable only for the normal period, if any.

  Penalty - HELD THAT:- In the facts and circumstances of the case, including considering the fact that the appellant is a Government Undertaking, invoking Section 80 of the Finance Act, 1994, the penalties imposed in the impugned Order in Original set aside.

  Conclusion - i) The classification of services as "works contract service," upheld applying Section 65A of the Finance Act, 1994. ii) The exemption under Notifications No. 11/2010-ST, 32/2010-ST, and 45/2010-ST, denied applying a strict interpretation of exemption notifications as per the Supreme Court's guidance. iii) The invocation of the extended period is rejected due to the appellant's bona fide belief and prevailing confusion. iv) Penalties set aside invoking Section 80 of the Finance Act, 1994, considering the appellant's status as a government undertaking.

  The appeal is thus partly allowed.

  ---

• 2025 (4) TMI 570
  

  Time limitation for filing appeal - appeal filed within the permissible time limit as stipulated under section 85(3A) of the Finance Act, 1994 or not - service of the order upon one partner of a partnership firm constitutes service upon the firm itself - HELD THAT:- There is nothing on the record to show that there was any dispute between the two partners as no documents have been filed except a complaint before the Police which was also not pursued - Service of an order upon a partner shall be deemed to be service upon the appellant. The order shall, therefore, be deemed to have been served upon the appellant on 07.04.2017 and it is this date which has to be considered for the purposes of calculating limitation under section 85(3A) of the Finance Act.

  On a plain reading of the aforesaid provisions of section 85(3A) of the Finance Act, it is clear that any person aggrieved by any decision or order passed by the adjudicating authority may appeal to the Commissioner (Appeals) within two months from the date of receipt of the decision or order. The proviso, however, stipulates that the Commissioner (Appeals) may, if he is satisfied that the appellant was prevented by sufficient cause from presenting the appeal within the aforesaid period of two months, allow it to be presented within a further period of one month. It is, therefore, clear that an appeal can be filed within two months from the date of communication of the order, but if the appeal is filed after two months but within one month after the expiry of two months, the Commissioner (Appeals) may condone the delay in filing the appeal if he is satisfied that the appellant was prevented by sufficient cause from preferring the appeal within two months.

  This issue was considered by the Supreme Court in Singh Enterprises vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Jamshedpur [2007 (12) TMI 11 - SUPREME COURT]. The Supreme Court examined the provisions of section 35 of the Central Excise Act, 1944, which are para materia the provisions of section 85 of the Finance Act, and observed that delay can be condoned in accordance with the language of the Statute which confers power on the Appellate Authority to entertain the appeal by condoning the delay only up to 30 days after expiry of 60 days which is the normal period for preferring the appeal. It is for this reason that the Supreme Court observed that the Commissioner and High Court were justified in holding that there was no power to condone the delay after expiry of 30 days period.

  A Division Bench of the Tribunal in Diamond Construction [2019 (2) TMI 1822 - CESTAT NEW DELHI], in which the provisions of section 85 (3A) of the Finance Act 1994 relating to appeals to the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals) came up for consideration, after placing reliance upon the decision of the Supreme Court in Singh Enterprises observed that the discretion of the Commissioner to condone the delay is circumscribed by the conditions set out in the proviso and any delay beyond that period cannot be condoned.

  Conclusion - As the appeal is preferred by the appellant before the Commissioner (Appeals) even beyond the extended period of one month after the expiry of the statutory period of two months, it is liable to be dismissed and is rightly dismissed by the Commissioner (Appeals).

  There is, therefore, no infirmity in the order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals). The appeal is, accordingly, dismissed.

  ---

• 2025 (4) TMI 569
  

  Taxability - declared service or not - income received as “forfeiture of security Deposit/ Earnest Money Deposit” and “Fine penalties recovered from contractors” by the appellant - HELD THAT:- The Tribunal in the case of South Eastern Coal Fields Ltd. vs. CCE & ST, Raipur 2020 (12) TMI 912 - CESTAT NEW DELHI] has considered the same issue and held that 'the issue of leviability of Service tax on penalty, liquidated damages, compensation, forfeiture amounts, cancellation charges etc. stands settled by various pronouncements wherein it has consistently been held that the said amounts recovered as charges for breach or non-compliance of contractual terms and conditions cannot be construed as ‘consideration’ for ‘refraining or tolerating an act’ and were thus not leviable on Service Tax.'

  From the perusal of the decisions it becomes abundantly clear that the issue of considering a forfeited amount as an amount of consideration towards declared services stands already settled in favour of the assessee. The same is already held to not to be the consideration towards rendering declared service defined under section 66E(e) of the Finance Act, 1944. In fact the cancellation of contract itself is held to not to be a service. There are no reason to differ from this finding.

  In appellant’s own case [2024 (12) TMI 11 - CESTAT NEW DELHI], while relying upon the decision of South Eastern Coal (supra) has set aside the demand of service tax confirmed on the identical allegations holding that the penalties, fines and forfeited amounts cannot be treated as consideration towards declared services defined under section 66 E(e) of the Finance Act.

  Conclusion - Amounts recovered as penalties or for breach of contract are not consideration for a service and thus not subject to service tax.

  Appeal allowed.

  ---

• 2025 (4) TMI 568
  

  CENVAT Credit - Cenvat Credit taken without proper documents - Cenvat Credit taken on the basis of documents not prescribed under Rule 9(1) of CCR - Credit taken on certain ineligible services - Credit taken on the goods, which are neither inputs nor capital goods - reverse charge mechanism - time limitation.

  Disallowing credit on the basis of not having proper documents - HELD THAT:- The provisions under Rule 9(1) of CCR are quite clear and it is an admitted fact that none of these specified documents were available with the appellant for taking the credit. We also find that as far as Rule 9(2) is concerned, certain minimum details were required to be shown in the documents for its admissibility as valid document for taking credit and the concerned Deputy Commissioner is also required to be satisfied about its actual receipt/use by the person taking the credit - where credit has been denied on this ground and where the proper documents have not been submitted, prima facie, they will not be entitled for the credit. However, since they are claiming that these documents are having those details, in the interest of natural justice, we find it fit to remand this issue back to the Original Adjudicating Authority to go through the documents submitted by them and satisfy himself whether Rule 9(2) criteria is met or otherwise and thereafter, allow the credit to the extent it meets the criteria.

  Disallowing credit on the basis of input services being not input services in relation to the output services of the appellant - HELD THAT:- There is nothing on record to suggest as to what would be the actual nature and their relationship to the services provided. Therefore, this aspect is also remanded back to the Adjudicating Authority, who shall go through the details as well as documents to be furnished by the appellant to come to the conclusion that whether these services were required for providing output services or otherwise and thereafter, allow the credit.

  Reverse charge mechanism - HELD THAT:- There is another aspect also where the appellants have paid certain service tax in relation to payment to Indian Port Association (IPA) where they have themselves paid the service tax and have claimed the credit thereof. Here also, the issue would be whether they are eligible to take the credit on Reverse Charge Mechanism (RCM) or otherwise. Therefore, this aspect also needs to be re-examined to understand whether service tax paid by them on the reimbursement made to IPA was service tax paid by them on behalf of IPA/service provider or it was paid by them on their own as service recipient under RCM. This needs to be examined to come to the conclusion whether they were admissible to credit.

  Time Limitation - HELD THAT:- This aspect is not examined as the Adjudicating Authority has given certain reasons to invoke extended period. On remand proceedings, the Adjudicating Authority will take into consideration this Order of the Tribunal dt. 14.03.2019 where the invocation of extended period was not found tenable against the same appellant by this Bench and see if there is any other extra ground or positive evidence to invoke extended period to come to the conclusion whether extended period is applicable or otherwise. If there is nothing, then by virtue of the order of this Tribunal dt. 14.03.2019, they being a Government Organisation, extended period is not liable to be invoked.

  Conclusion - i) The remand of issues concerning documentation and input services to the Adjudicating Authority for further examination and determination of compliance with Rule 9(2) of CCR. ii) The remand of the issue concerning eligibility for credit under RCM to ascertain the nature of service tax payments related to the IPA. iii) The instruction to the Adjudicating Authority to consider the Tribunal's previous order regarding the non-applicability of the extended period for demand due to the appellant's status as a government organization.

  The appeal is remanded back to the Adjudicating Authority - Appeal allowed by way of remand.

  ---

• 2025 (4) TMI 510
  

  Tenability of service tax demand invoking rule 5(1) of the Service Tax (Determination of Value) Rules, 2006 (Valuation Rules) - inclusion of reimbursed expenditures or costs incurred in the course of providing taxable services - tenability of demand of cenvat credit availed and utilized for payment of tax on non- taxable output service.

  Inclusion of reimbursed expenditures or costs incurred in the course of providing taxable services - HELD THAT:- The issue is no more res-integra in view of the decision of the Honourable Supreme Court in the case of UOI v Intercontinental Consultants and Technocrats Pvt Ltd, [2018 (3) TMI 357 - SUPREME COURT] which has considered the issue of liability to pay service tax on reimbursable expenses received by the service provider in the course of rendering services for the client, apart from the consideration received for rendering the services on which the client has discharged the liability to pay service tax.

  The Honourable 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.

  The findings in the impugned order in appeal confirming the demand on non-inclusion of reimbursable charges cannot sustain and are liable to be set aside.

  Cenvat credit availed and utilized for payment of service tax on services that are non-taxable - HELD THAT:- The said issue also stands decided in the appellant’s favour in light of the Hon’ble Apex Court decision in CCE, Vadodara v Narmada Chematur Pharmaceuticals Ltd, [2004 (12) TMI 93 - SUPREME COURT], wherein the wrongly availed cenvat credit was utilized for payment of excise duty, the Hon’ble Apex Court has held that the consequences of payment of excise duty after availing modvat credit was revenue neutral and thus dismissed the appeal filed by the revenue. Thus, the demands made on the appellant on this count too will not sustain.

  Conclusion - i) The reimbursed expenses should not be included in the taxable value of services. ii) The reversal of CENVAT credit for non-taxable services is not warranted.

  Appeal allowed.

  ---

• 2025 (4) TMI 509
  

  Denial of CENVAT credit - invocation of extended period of limitation - demand of interest - Imposition of penalty under section 78.

  Admissibility of CENVAT Credit on the disputed services - Training Service provided by other institutions to employees of GAIL - HELD THAT:- The term “coaching and training” must be “coaching and training” of the employees of the assessee. Merely because the bills were paid by the assessee, the services provided by way of coaching and training of employees of GAIL do not become input services of the assessee. The submission of the appellant that the entire legal entity should be considered to determine eligibility of CENVAT credit and that the appellant was not distinct from GAIL deserves to be rejected. Unlike income tax, where the tax is assessed on the corporate entity combining all the incomes and expenses across all its units across the country, in Service Tax, every individual service providing entity is an assessee by itself. It has to pay service tax on the output services which it provides and it has no responsibility to pay service tax if some other unit of the same company had provided services. Similarly, every unit is entitled to take CENVAT credit on the inputs and input services which it uses in providing output services but it cannot take CENVAT credit of some input services used by some other unit of the same corporate entity. Simply because the bills are paid by the appellant, the training service will not become an input service for its output service which is commercial coaching and training. For all these reasons, the submissions by the appellant deserve to be rejected.

  Admissibility of CENVAT Credit on the disputed services - Cable service - Housekeeping service - Pest control service - Courier service - Insurance service - Manpower recruitment service - Photocopying service - Security service - Telecommunication service - Ticket booking service - Works contract/maintenance and repair service - Catering service - Hiring of vehicles service - HELD THAT:- No reason has been given in the SCN or in the impugned order to deny CENVAT credit on this service. Considering the nature of the service provided by the appellant, it is clear that the appellant is entitled to CENVAT credit of the service tax paid on the above services.

  Extended period of limitation - HELD THAT:- The Returns do not require invoice-wise details of CENVAT credit nor any justification or explanation about the credit availed on each of the invoices. Once the Return is filed, it is the responsibility of the Range Officer to scrutinize it and for this purpose, he can call for any records and accounts of the assessee. Had this been done, the officer would have found out on which services CENVAT was availed and could have acted on it. Apparently, the officer did not scrutinize the Returns as the audit did much later and found the alleged irregularities. All that this proves is that the Range officer had not done his job properly and it does not show that the appellant had suppressed anything. Therefore, there is no ground to invoke extended period of limitation at all.

  Demand of interest - HELD THAT:- If some CENVAT credit is recoverable, interest, at the appropriate rates also must be paid as per section 75.

  Penalty - HELD THAT:- The Commissioner imposed a penalty under section 78 of the Finance Act which can be imposed only if the service tax was not paid by reason of fraud or collusion or willful mis-statement or suppression of facts or violation of the Act or Rules made thereunder with an intent to evade payment of service tax. In other words, the same elements which are required to invoke extended period of limitation are also required to impose penalty under this section. Since none of these elements were present, the penalty needs to be set aside as well.

  Conclusion - The appeal is partly allowed by upholding the denial and recovery of CENVAT credit availed on training services within the normal period of limitation with appropriate interest and setting aside the rest of the demand and penalties. The matter is remanded to the Commissioner for the limited purpose of calculation of the CENVAT credit and interest to be recovered.

  Appeal allowed by way of remand.

  ---

• 2025 (4) TMI 452
  

  Entitlement to specific deductions under Rule 2A of the Service Tax (Determination of Values) Rules, 2006 - applicability of Ext.P4 N/N. 30/2012 regarding the percentage of service tax payable - condonation of delay in filing the appeal against the assessment order - HELD THAT:- The specific contention raised by the petitioner is that the deduction available to the petitioner as per 2A (i) of the Rules, 2006 has not been extended to the petitioner. Though in the counter affidavit the stand of the department is that whatever abatement applicable to the services provided by the assessee has given due credit to as per the provisions of the Act and therefore, the contention of the petitioner is without any basis, the learned counsel for the petitioner pointed out that, even in Ext.R1(b) inspection report of CERA it is specifically found that the VCES request made by the petitioner was rejected on the ground of nonpayment of dues within the stipulated time and on the basis of the same it is contended that the stand in the counter affidavit that whatever benefits of abatement applicable to the service provided by the assessee as per the Act has been extended to the petitioner is without any basis.

  Yet another aspect to be noted is that the petitioner was detected with cancer and he was undergoing treatment and due to strong dosage and potency of the medicines taken for cancer and consequent dizziness he had a fall from the terrace of his residence which resulted in multiple fractures. The health issues of the petitioner was stated as reasons for the delay in filing the appeal. It is also to be noted that though a specific contention was taken by the petitioner that he is entitled for the benefit of Ext. P4 notification, no answer has been given in the counter affidavit filed by the respondents regarding the same.

  The matter requires reconsideration by the 1st respondent assessing authority. To facilitate reconsideration, Exts.P3 and P9 are set aside - Petition disposed off by way of remand.

  ---

• 2025 (4) TMI 451
  

  Violation of the principles of natural justice - alleged failure to consider the petitioner's reply to the show cause notice - HELD THAT:- The impugned order as contained in Annexure ‘P4’ suffers from violation of Principles of Natural Justice. The reply submitted by the petitioner seems to have been forgotten and not taken note of and thereby obviously not considered by the competent authority while passing the impugned order as contained in Annexure ‘P4’.

  The impugned order dated 18.07.2024 passed by the Joint Commissioner, CGST and Central Excise, Patna-I (Annexure P4) set aside on this ground alone and the matter remitted back to the competent authority who shall consider the reply submitted by the petitioner, give an opportunity of personal hearing and shall pass order afresh taking into account all the points which are open to the petitioner in accordance with law.

  Petition allowed by way of remand.

  ---

• 2025 (4) TMI 450
  

  Calculation of service tax - inclusion of charges collected by the appellant, apart from the service charges for Custom House Agency Service, in the assessale value - pure agent services or not - Section 67 of the Finance Act, 1994, read with Rule 5(1) of the Service Tax Valuation Rules, 2006 - HELD THAT:- The issue is no more res-integra in view of the decision of the Honourable Supreme Court in the case of UOI v Intercontinental Consultants and Technocrats Pvt Ltd, [2018 (3) TMI 357 - SUPREME COURT] which has considered the issue of liability to pay service tax on reimbursable expenses received by the service provider in the course of rendering services for the client, apart from the consideration received for rendering the services on which the client has discharged the liability to pay service tax.

  The Honourable 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.

  Conclusion - The charges collected by the appellant, which are reimbursable expenses, should not be included in the taxable value for service tax purposes.

  Appeal allowed.

  ---

• 2025 (4) TMI 449
  

  Liability to pay service tax on reimbursable expenses collected from clients through debit notes - Rule 5(1) of the Valuation Rules - HELD THAT:- The issue is no more res-integra in view of the decision of the Honourable Supreme Court in the case of UOI v Intercontinental Consultants and Technocrats Pvt Ltd, [2018 (3) TMI 357 - SUPREME COURT] which has considered the issue of liability to pay service tax on reimbursable expenses received by the service provider in the course of rendering services for the client, apart from the consideration received for rendering the services on which the client has discharged the liability to pay service tax.

  The Honourable 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.

  Conclusion - The appellant is not liable to pay service tax on the reimbursable expenses for the period in question, as the inclusion of such expenses is not supported by the statutory framework at the time.

  The impugned order in appeal upholding the demand confirmed by the adjudicating authority along with applicable interest and imposition of equivalent penalty cannot sustain - Appeal allowed.

  ---

• 2025 (4) TMI 448
  

  Levy of service tax - Support Services of Business or Commerce - subvention amount received by the appellant - HELD THAT:- The present Statement of Demand has been issued premised on the allegations mentioned in the previous SCNs which stood adjudicated and the appeals preferred against the impugned Orders therein have been decided by this Tribunal in the appellant’s favour in [2023 (2) TMI 830 - CESTAT CHENNAI] - Thus, the issue is no more res-integra and stands decided in the appellant’s favour not only by virtue of the aforesaid decision in the appellant’s own case but also the decisions relied upon by the appellant as aforementioned.

  Conclusion - BCCI and similar cricket associations are not commercial entities, and their activities do not constitute business or commerce for service tax purposes.

  Appeal allowed.

  ---

• 2025 (4) TMI 447
  

  Calculation of service tax - inclusion of amount received by CSC Publications and Ramiah Publications, who are independent entities, for sale of course material kits supplied and payment for which was routed through the appellant, in the value of taxable services provided by the appellant - HELD THAT:- A similar issue had come up for consideration before the Hon’ble High Court of Punjab & Haryana in the matter of CCE, Chandigarh- I v. Pinnacle, [2014 (8) TMI 149 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT] where it was held that 'the order of the Tribunal to exclude the cost of such material from the quantification of the service tax provided by the assessee have been rightly allowed. The study material supplied by the Bulls Eye is quantifiable separately. The condition in the circular relates to the services of reading material and text books provided by the assessee-institute and not books purchased from another supplier. Such goods can be quantified by the price paid. Therefore, the amount of such goods have been rightly excluded in terms of Notification No. 12/2003-S.T., dated 20-6-2003.'

  The Honourable Supreme Court has in the case of UOI v Intercontinental Consultants and Technocrats Pvt Ltd, [2018 (3) TMI 357 - SUPREME COURT], affirmed the decision of the Delhi High Court in [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. Thus, the very proposal in the SCN has been rendered meritless.

  Conclusion - The value of goods sold separately from services should not be included in the taxable value of services.

  The demand for service tax on the value of course materials is unsustainable and that the invocation of the extended period is unjustified - appeal allowed.

  ---

• 2025 (4) TMI 446
  

  Liability of service tax - Intellectual Property Service prior to July 2012 - transfer of technical know-how to the appellant - extended period of limitation - HELD THAT:- In the instant case, it is an admitted fact that the technical know-how was transferred to the appellant in 2009, soon after the signing of agreements. It is also an admitted fact that the appellant shared a portion of the PGCIL business with GANZ & ZTR in lieu of transfer of technical know-how. It is noted that no service tax was payable on technical know-how service under the category of intellectual property service prior to this date. IPR service was covered under section 66E (c) with effect from 1.7.2012, and the confirmation of demand on technical know-how service cannot be sustained prior to this date. It is further noted that transfer of technical know-how service cannot be treated as IPR as the same was not registered under any law in India. Accordingly, no service tax can be confirmed under this head.

  In the case of Chambal Fertilizers & Chemicals Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Jaipur-I [2016 (8) TMI 150 - CESTAT NEW DELHI] this Tribunal has observed that 'It has been held that to be categorized for service tax purpose under IPR, such right should have been registered with trade mark/patent authority. In the present case, admittedly, there is no right recognized as IPR under any law for the time being in force in India. As such, there can be no provision of IPR service for tax liability on reverse charge basis.'

  Conclusion - The appellant is not liable for service tax on the transfer of technical know-how prior to July 2012, as it do not qualify as an Intellectual Property Right under Indian law.

  The impugned order is not sustainable and the same is set aside. The appeal is, accordingly, allowed.

  ---

1 ....212223242526272829........ 1578