|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 221 to 240 of 862 Records
-
2009 (3) TMI 891
In the case of Appellate Tribunal CESTAT MUMBAI, the adjudicating authority demanded Service Tax of over Rs. 76 lakhs from the appellant for the period April 2003 to March 2006. The tax was assessed on a value of Rs. 3.5 crores from an agreement for lease of equipment. The appellants collected this amount in 26 equal installments from the lessee, which the lower authorities considered as taxable value of "Banking and Other Financial Services." The main argument of the appellants is that they are not covered by the definition of the service under Section 65 of the Finance Act, 1994. The appellants' Counsel argued that the appellant-company, though a body corporate, would not come within the definition of "any other body corporate." The Counsel cited three stay orders from the South Zonal Bench of the Tribunal, which supported the argument that a company should be rendering financial services only if its transactions with customers are of a financial nature. The Jt. CDR argued that the real nature of the transaction between the appellants and their lessee was that of a financial service, based on the provisions of the agreement. The Counsel contested this by stating that there can be no financial service if there is no financial gain to the service provider. The Tribunal decided to waive pre-deposit and stay recovery of the service tax amount and penalty amount until the final disposal of the appeal, based on the orders cited by the Counsel.
-
2009 (3) TMI 890
The stay petition was filed against the waiver of pre-deposit of Service Tax, interest, penalty, and other charges. The applicant had already deposited most of the Service Tax amount, so the waiver of the balance amounts was allowed. Recovery was stayed until the appeal's disposal, with no coercive measures by the Revenue. The Stay Order would continue even after 180 days.
-
2009 (3) TMI 889
The Appellate Tribunal CESTAT AHMEDABAD confirmed Service tax of Rs. 25,475 against the appellant but allowed appeal for final disposal on 6-4-2009. The appellant argued that services were rendered before February 2006, even though payments were received after 1-3-2006. The Tribunal found force in this argument and dispensed with pre-deposit of duty and penalty.
-
2009 (3) TMI 888
The Appellate Tribunal CESTAT CHENNAI allowed the application for waiver of pre-deposit of service tax of Rs. 17,54,838/- along with interest and penalty of Rs. 10,000. The waiver was granted based on the prima facie case made by the applicants regarding entitlement to credit of service tax paid on commission for procuring a contract. Recovery is stayed pending the appeal.
-
2009 (3) TMI 887
Issues:
Stay application against order-in-original for payment of Service Tax, penalties, and delay in submission of ST-3 Return.
Analysis:
The applicant, engaged in issuing air tickets, filed a stay application against an order-in-original for payment of Service Tax, penalties, and delay in submission of ST-3 Return. The Commissioner of Service Tax, Mumbai, passed the impugned order based on an investigation initiated by officers of DGCEI, Mumbai, who conducted a search of the applicant's office premises. The applicant admitted liability for Service Tax but sought waiver of interest and penalties. The applicant claimed that one individual, Shri P.K. Agarwal, managed the tax liabilities independently, without the knowledge of the management. However, the Revenue contended that the management was aware of Shri P.K. Agarwal's activities. The Tribunal found it to be a case of misappropriation of Service Tax funds collected from customers, with the applicant's defense being that Shri P.K. Agarwal was responsible for the misappropriation.
The Tribunal held that the applicant failed to establish a prima facie case in their favor. As a result, the Tribunal directed the applicant to pre-deposit the balance amount of Service Tax, interest on the entire amount, and a penalty within eight weeks. Failure to comply would lead to the dismissal of the appeal without further notice. The compliance deadline was set for a specific date.
In conclusion, the Tribunal's decision emphasized the importance of pre-depositing the required amounts to proceed with the appeal process. The judgment highlighted the seriousness of misappropriation of Service Tax funds and the need for accountability in tax matters.
-
2009 (3) TMI 886
The Appellate Tribunal CESTAT MUMBAI issued an order regarding a stay application filed by Polymerman (Asia) Pvt. Ltd. against an order-in-appeal passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), Central Excise and Customs, Nashik. The Commissioner dismissed the appeal due to the appellant's failure to make a pre-deposit of Rs. 5,00,000 as ordered. The appellants were directed to pay Rs. 3,14,449 towards service tax, interest, and penalties imposed under various sections of the Finance Act, 1994. The appellants sought multiple adjournments, leading to the stay petition being disposed of based on available records. The appellants were found liable to pay service tax for the period from 1999 to 2002, as they were not entitled to exemption under Notification No. 48/1998. They were directed to pre-deposit the required sum within four weeks, with penalties being stayed pending appeal. Failure to comply would result in dismissal of the appeal without further notice. The order was pronounced in court by Shri A.K. Srivastava and Ashok Jindal, JJ. The Appellant was unrepresented, while the Respondent was represented by Shri T. Tiju, JDR.
-
2009 (3) TMI 885
Issues involved: Application for waiver of pre-deposit of service tax and penalties under various sections of the Finance Act, 1994 for outdoor catering services rendered during a specific period.
Summary:
1. The applicants sought waiver of pre-deposit of service tax and penalties u/s 76, 77, and 78 of the Finance Act, 1994, for outdoor catering services provided from 10-9-2004 to 31-3-2005. The definition of outdoor catering at that time did not align with the services provided by the applicants, who operated at leased premises. The argument of time-bar was raised due to a show-cause notice issued on 22-11-2006, with the appellants claiming a genuine belief based on a CBEC Circular issued on 27-7-2005 post-amendment of the definition.
2. The learned SDR opposed complete waiver, asserting that the demand was not time-barred as the services fell within the definition of outdoor catering even during the disputed period. While the applicants failed to establish a prima facie case on merits, it was acknowledged that no suppression or misstatement to evade tax payment was evident. An offer to deposit Rs. 1,00,000 towards service tax was accepted, with directions for pre-deposit within eight weeks. Upon compliance, the balance amount of service tax and penalties would be waived, and recovery stayed pending appeal.
3. The Tribunal directed compliance to be reported by 22-5-2009, emphasizing the consequences of non-compliance leading to the vacation of stay and dismissal of the appeal without prior notice.
-
2009 (3) TMI 884
Issues: Application for waiver of pre-deposit of Service Tax and penalties
The judgment addresses the issue of waiver of pre-deposit of Service Tax and penalties amounting to Rs. 69,89,024/- along with additional penalties under Sections 76 and 77 of the Finance Act. The demand for tax was confirmed based on the appellant providing loading and transportation services of coal to a specific entity. The appellant cited precedents where unconditional waivers were granted in similar cases by the Tribunal and the High Court. Specifically, references were made to cases like SSV Coal Carriers Pvt. Ltd. v. CCE, Nagpur, Sainik Mining & Allied Service Ltd. v. CCE, C & ST Bhubaneshwar, and Wardha Coal Transport Pvt. Ltd. v. The Union of India. The Tribunal acknowledged the consistent granting of full waivers in comparable cases and decided to follow the same rule. Relying on the observations of the Hon'ble High Court of Bombay, the Tribunal granted the waiver of service tax and penalties, staying the recovery pending appeal.
In this judgment, the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT MUMBAI considered the application for waiver of pre-deposit of Service Tax and penalties. The demand for tax was upheld due to the appellant's provision of loading and transportation services for coal. The appellant presented precedents where unconditional waivers were granted in similar cases by the Tribunal and the High Court. Notably, references were made to cases such as SSV Coal Carriers Pvt. Ltd. v. CCE, Nagpur, Sainik Mining & Allied Service Ltd. v. CCE, C & ST Bhubaneshwar, and Wardha Coal Transport Pvt. Ltd. v. The Union of India. The Tribunal, in line with the consistent granting of full waivers in analogous cases, decided to grant the waiver of service tax and penalties, staying the recovery during the appeal process.
The judgment by the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT MUMBAI delves into the application for waiver of pre-deposit of Service Tax and penalties. The tax demand was confirmed based on the appellant's provision of loading and transportation services for coal. The appellant referred to previous cases where unconditional waivers were granted in similar circumstances by the Tribunal and the High Court. Noteworthy mentions include cases like SSV Coal Carriers Pvt. Ltd. v. CCE, Nagpur, Sainik Mining & Allied Service Ltd. v. CCE, C & ST Bhubaneshwar, and Wardha Coal Transport Pvt. Ltd. v. The Union of India. Recognizing the consistent pattern of granting full waivers in comparable instances, the Tribunal decided to follow suit. Citing the observations of the Hon'ble High Court of Bombay, the Tribunal granted the waiver of service tax and penalties, halting the recovery process pending the appeal.
-
2009 (3) TMI 883
The Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai granted waiver of pre-deposit of service tax amounting to Rs. 8,36,27,487/- along with interest and penalties. This decision was based on a strong prima facie case made by the applicants, citing a relevant judgment by the Hon'ble Apex Court and Hon'ble Sikkim High Court. The Tribunal also stayed the recovery of the amounts during the appeal process.
-
2009 (3) TMI 882
Issues:
Question of penalty under Section 76 of the Finance Act, 1994 for delayed payment of service tax.
Analysis:
The judgment dealt with the issue of whether a penalty is liable to be imposed under Section 76 of the Finance Act, 1994 on the ground of delay in payment of service tax. The assessee had paid the service tax with interest before the issuance of the show-cause notice. The Authorised Representative of the assessee requested waiver of pre-deposit and stay of recovery regarding the penalty imposed by the original and appellate authorities. The learned DR argued that payment before the notice does not avoid the penalty, citing judgments from the Supreme Court. However, the tribunal noted that the case law cited by the DR related to a penalty under a different act and was not directly applicable to the present case under Section 76 of the Finance Act, 1994.
The tribunal analyzed that Section 76 of the Finance Act, 1994, which provides for a penalty on delayed payment of service tax, is not comparable to the penalty under Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act. Section 11AC deals with penalties for defaulters of Central Excise duty due to fraud, suppression of facts, or contravention of provisions with intent to evade payment. The tribunal found that the case law cited by the DR was not applicable to the facts of the current case. Consequently, the tribunal ordered the waiver of pre-deposit and stay of recovery in respect of the penalty imposed on the appellants for delayed payment of service tax.
In conclusion, the tribunal ruled in favor of the assessee, granting waiver of pre-deposit and stay of recovery concerning the penalty imposed under Section 76 of the Finance Act, 1994. The judgment clarified the distinction between penalties under different acts and emphasized the specific provisions of Section 76 in relation to delayed payment of service tax.
-
2009 (3) TMI 881
The Appellate Tribunal CESTAT CHENNAI allowed the appeals by remanding the case for fresh decision on waiver applications and appeals to the lower appellate authority. The impugned orders were set aside, and the assessees were granted a reasonable opportunity to be heard.
-
2009 (3) TMI 880
Issues:
1. Requirement of pre-deposit of service tax, education cess, interest, and penalties.
2. Dispute regarding liability to pay service tax on the amount collected for constructing toilets.
3. Applicability of the Board's clarification on service tax liability for maintaining public toilets.
4. Granting of waiver for the balance amount of service tax and interest.
Analysis:
1. The judgment dealt with the requirement of pre-deposit by the appellants, including service tax, education cess, interest, and penalties under Section 76 and Section 77. The advocate for the appellant acknowledged the payment of a part of the amount but disputed the liability for the balance amount related to service tax on funds received from Singareni Collieries Company Ltd. The contention was that the construction of toilets in Ramagundam for public use, as per the agreement with SCC, should not attract service tax as compensation would be received from SCC.
2. The advocate argued that the services provided, i.e., constructing toilets for public use, fell within the scope of the Board's clarification dated 23-10-2006. The clarification highlighted that activities like maintaining public toilets for nominal charges did not constitute taxable services under 'management, maintenance, and repair' services. It emphasized that such activities did not pertain to immovable property management and the actual beneficiaries were the users paying for the service, not the municipal bodies or organizations involved in the contract.
3. The Tribunal, after considering the Board's circular, agreed that the appellant's services aligned with the activities described therein. Consequently, the Tribunal ordered the waiver of the pre-deposit for the balance amount of service tax and interest. It further directed that no coercive measures should be taken until the appeal was decided. The stay order was to persist even beyond the 180-day limit as per established jurisprudence, ensuring the appellant's protection from enforcement actions during the appeal process.
4. The judgment, pronounced and dictated in open court, focused on the interpretation of the Board's circular regarding service tax liability for maintaining public toilets and its application to the appellant's case. By granting a waiver for the disputed amount and interest, the Tribunal provided interim relief to the appellant pending the final decision on the appeal, in line with the principles of natural justice and fair adjudication.
-
2009 (3) TMI 879
Issues:
1. Imposition of penalty under Section 76 of the Finance Act, 1994.
2. Rectification of error in the penalty imposition.
3. Prima facie case for waiver of pre-deposit of penalty.
Analysis:
Issue 1: Imposition of penalty under Section 76 of the Finance Act, 1994
The case involved a stay petition against an order related to the imposition of penalty under Section 76 of the Finance Act, 1994. The impugned order highlighted the discrepancy in the penalty imposed, indicating that the penalty should have been levied at a higher rate based on the provisions of Section 76. The adjudicating authority had imposed a lower penalty rate, contrary to the requirements of the law. The appellant argued that the authority could reduce the penalty but was countered by the reviewing authority, stating that the mistake in quantifying the penalty was apparent on record. The judgment emphasized that Section 76 did not allow for a lower penalty rate, and the mistake needed rectification following the procedure under Section 74 of the Finance Act, 1994.
Issue 2: Rectification of error in the penalty imposition
The Commissioner issued a show cause notice to rectify an error noticed in the Order-in-Original, which led to the imposition of penalty under Section 76. The applicant challenged the Order-in-Original through a stay application, resulting in an unconditional stay being granted. The Commissioner, in a subsequent order, confirmed and imposed the penalty at the correct rate, which was contested by the applicant. The Tribunal observed that the imposition of penalty in a subsequent order for the same offense, after no penalty was imposed in the initial order, was not in accordance with the law. Consequently, the Tribunal found a prima facie case for waiving the pre-deposit of the penalty imposed in the impugned order, and the recovery was stayed pending the appeal's disposal.
Issue 3: Prima facie case for waiver of pre-deposit of penalty
Upon careful consideration, the Tribunal concluded that the applicants had established a prima facie case for waiving the pre-deposit of the penalty imposed in the impugned order. Consequently, the application for the waiver of the pre-deposit of the amounts involved was allowed, and the recovery of the penalty was stayed until the appeal's final disposal. The Registry was directed to consolidate the appeal with another related appeal for final disposal, ensuring a comprehensive review of the case.
This detailed analysis of the judgment highlights the key issues of penalty imposition under Section 76, rectification of errors in penalty imposition, and the establishment of a prima facie case for the waiver of pre-deposit of the penalty. The Tribunal's decision focused on ensuring compliance with the law and providing a fair opportunity for the appellant to contest the penalty imposed.
-
2009 (3) TMI 878
The Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Bangalore ordered waiver of pre-deposit of Service tax of Rs. 11,17,430/- along with interest for the period from July 2003 to 9th September 2004. The appellants, dealers for M/s. Maruti Udyog Ltd., received 3% commission on promotion of auto loans. They are liable to pay Service Tax under Business Auxiliary Services from 10-9-2004. M/s. Maruti Udyog Ltd. had already paid Service Tax on the entire commission received during the disputed period. No coercive action by the revenue is allowed until the appeal is disposed of.
-
2009 (3) TMI 877
Waiver of pre-deposit - CENVAT credit - input service - GTA service - Held that: - The appellants received vehicles from Hero Honda. The vehicles have to be necessarily brought to their premises. Therefore, we cannot say that the Service Tax paid under the GTA will not be entitled for credit as input service. Prima facie, the appellants have a strong case on merits - we order complete waiver of pre-deposit of the dues demanded in the impugned order - appeal allowed.
-
2009 (3) TMI 876
Issues: Condonation of delay due to sickness in filing appeal, clubbing of appeals for common disposal
Condonation of Delay Issue:
The appellant sought condonation of a 23-day delay in filing the appeal, attributing it to sickness. The appellant's counsel supported the condonation, presenting a medical certificate as evidence. The respondent opposed, citing the timing of sickness close to the limitation period's end. The Tribunal held that a litigant can seek appeal remedy even on the last day of limitation. The length of delay is irrelevant; the causes of delay are crucial for condonation consideration. The appellant substantiated the case with a medical certificate demonstrating a reasonable cause before the limitation expired, beyond the appellant's control. Consequently, the delay was condoned, and the appeal was admitted for hearing.
Clubbing of Appeals Issue:
During the hearing, it was revealed that the Revenue had also filed an appeal against the same order under appeal in a separate case. The Revenue's appeal had a stay application, which was disposed of earlier. Considering the pendency of the Revenue's appeal, the Tribunal directed both appeals, Appeal Case No. 56/09 and ST/Appeal Case No. 803/08, to be clubbed for common disposal. The Registry was instructed to list the matters for a joint hearing on a specified date, ensuring both parties were informed of the decision.
-
2009 (3) TMI 875
Issues:
- Whether Service Tax is payable on the amount of taxable services shown in the Balance Sheet or the actual interest received by the respondents.
Analysis:
The appeal was filed by the Revenue against the Order-in-Appeal No. 115-CE/MRT-I/2008, where the Adjudication Order was set aside, and the appeal was allowed subject to verification by the Adjudicating Authority of the actual receipt of the value of taxable services during the relevant period. The main issue in this case revolved around whether Service Tax is payable on the amount of taxable services shown in the Balance Sheet or the actual interest received by the respondents.
During the hearing, the Revenue's representative argued that the respondent failed to produce the necessary records to support their claim that they had paid the tax on the interest actually received by them. The representative further contended that the respondent should provide proof of actual receipt of payment, such as cheques and drafts, for verification. It was emphasized that the respondent did not present any evidence in this regard.
Upon careful consideration of the arguments presented, the judge found merit in the Revenue's submissions. Consequently, the impugned order was modified to direct the respondent to produce the required documents before the Original Authority to demonstrate that they had paid the Service tax on the actual amount of interest received from their clients. The Department was also instructed to verify these documents as directed by the Commissioner (Appeals). The appeal was disposed of based on these terms, and any cross objections were also resolved accordingly.
The order was dictated and pronounced in the open court on 17-3-2009, bringing the matter to a conclusion with a clear directive for the respondent to provide the necessary documentation for verification regarding the payment of Service Tax on the actual interest received.
-
2009 (3) TMI 874
Issues:
1. Availment of CENVAT credit on service tax for rent-a-cab service used for employee transportation.
2. Interpretation of the definition of "input service" under Rule 2(l) of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004.
3. Examination of the scope of the term "indirectly" in relation to the use of rent-a-cab service for business activities.
Analysis:
1. The Appellate Tribunal observed that the lower authority permitted the respondents to claim CENVAT credit on service tax for rent-a-cab service utilized for transporting their employees during the disputed period. The appellate authority determined that the service fell within the definition of "input service" under Rule 2(l) of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004. The service was utilized for various business-related activities such as visiting government authorities, suppliers, market research, and outdoor business, indirectly contributing to the manufacture and clearance of final products. This decision was influenced by a previous case where a similar service was deemed admissible as input service tax credit. However, the scope of the term "indirectly" in this context was contested by the Ld. DR, suggesting that transportation of items other than goods might not qualify as an input service.
2. In the case cited by the consultant, the service tax paid on rent-a-cab service for bringing employees to work in the factory was considered admissible as input service tax credit, emphasizing the indirect relation to manufacturing activities. The Ld. DR argued that the term "indirectly" needed further examination, pointing out that the transportation of inputs or capital goods was explicitly mentioned in the definition of "input service," potentially excluding the transportation of other items. The Appellate Tribunal acknowledged the need to scrutinize this argument, as it was not previously raised before the co-ordinate bench. To ensure judicial consistency, the case was referred to a Division Bench for a comprehensive evaluation of the interpretation of "input service" in the context of rent-a-cab services for employee transportation.
3. The key issue revolved around the interpretation of the term "indirectly" concerning the utilization of rent-a-cab services for business-related activities. While the lower authority and the appellate authority supported the admissibility of CENVAT credit based on the indirect link to manufacturing processes, the Ld. DR raised concerns about the scope of this indirect connection. The decision to refer the case to a Division Bench reflected the need for a thorough analysis of whether services like employee transportation, beyond goods transport, could be considered within the ambit of "input services" for tax credit purposes. This step aimed to ensure a consistent and well-founded interpretation of the relevant legal provisions.
-
2009 (3) TMI 873
Issues involved: Determination of liability to service tax on construction and repair services provided by the appellant.
Summary:
The appellant, a construction contractor, was investigated for alleged evasion of service tax on construction and repair services provided to various clients. The appellant agreed to pay service tax on commercial construction but disputed the tax liability on repair services for roads, claiming exemption under the Finance Act, 1994. The adjudicating authority confirmed the demand for repair services, citing specific processes not carried out by the appellant. The appellant contended that the repair of roads is exempted from tax under Section 65(25b) of the Finance Act, 1994.
Upon review, the Commissioner found that repair services provided in respect of roads are explicitly excluded from tax liability under the Act. The definition of Commercial or Industrial Construction Service excludes services provided in respect of roads, supporting the appellant's claim for exemption. The Commissioner also noted that the appellant had not collected service tax from clients where it was reimbursable, indicating no intent to evade tax. The appellant promptly paid the tax upon becoming aware of the liability, demonstrating a bona fide error in interpretation.
Consequently, the Commissioner ruled in favor of the appellant, setting aside the tax demands and penalties imposed under the Finance Act, 1994. The appellant was directed to pay interest on the confirmed amounts, acknowledging their liability in that regard.
-
2009 (3) TMI 872
State Development Tax - whether payable by the petitioners in addition to the composition amount mentioned in the compounding scheme?
Held that:- The tax payable under the compounding scheme is a composition amount in lieu of the tax payable, is introduced as a simplified method of payment tax overriding the complicated process of assessment wherein the gross turnover and net turnover are being determined. If the State Development Tax is held to be chargeable over and above, the composition amount, for the purpose of determination of the State Development Tax the aggregate turnover and taxable tax are to be determined which may lead to passing, therefore, same complicated procedure of determination of gross and taxable turnover. In the circumstances, the whole object of the compounding scheme would frustrate.
Thus State Development Tax is not payable by the petitioners in addition to the composition amount mentioned in the compounding scheme. The circular dated 4.6.2007 issued by the Commissioner of Trade Tax is erroneous and liable to be set aside. Appeal allowed.
............
|
9911796707
