|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 221 to 240 of 935 Records
-
2013 (6) TMI 722
Issues Involved:
1. Taxability of compensation received for waiving rights under a Joint Venture Agreement.
2. Classification of the compensation as capital receipt or short-term capital gain.
Summary:
Issue 1: Taxability of Compensation Received for Waiving Rights under a Joint Venture Agreement
The assessee, a company engaged in trading and servicing electronic equipment, filed an appeal against the order of the CIT(A) confirming the addition of Rs. 2,10,75,000/- made by the A.O. The A.O. treated the compensation received by the assessee for waiving and giving up rights under Article 8.6 and 8.7 of the Joint Venture Agreement as income chargeable to tax under the head "short term capital gain." The assessee argued that the compensation was a capital receipt, relying on judicial pronouncements such as Kettlewell Bulen and Co. Ltd. vs. CIT and Oberoi Hotels Pvt. Ltd. vs. CIT, and claimed it should not be taxable under the Income Tax Act.
Issue 2: Classification of the Compensation as Capital Receipt or Short-Term Capital Gain
The A.O. contended that the amount was received against the sale of 50% shares in the Joint Venture Company and thus chargeable to tax as "short term capital gain." The CIT(A) upheld this view, stating that the right of first refusal (ROFR) was akin to a call option, and the compensation for giving up this right was taxable as short-term capital gain. The CIT(A) reasoned that the cost of acquisition of such a right was nil as per sec. 55(2)(a) of the Income Tax Act.
The Tribunal found that the A.O.'s finding was factually incorrect as the assessee continued to hold the shares even after receiving the compensation. The CIT(A) did not address the assessee's plea that the compensation was a capital receipt not chargeable to tax. Instead, the CIT(A) confirmed the addition on a different basis without giving the assessee an opportunity to be heard on this new basis.
Conclusion:
The Tribunal set aside the order of the CIT(A) and remitted the matter back for fresh consideration. The CIT(A) was directed to provide the assessee with a proper and adequate opportunity of being heard and to pass a well-considered and well-discussed order after dealing with the submissions made by the assessee.
Order Pronounced:
The appeal of the assessee was treated as allowed for statistical purposes, and the order was pronounced in the open court on 21-6-2013.
-
2013 (6) TMI 721
Issues involved:
The appeal filed by the revenue and the Cross Objection filed by the assessee are directed against the order passed by the Ld. CIT(A)-I, Kozhikode and they relate to the assessment year 2009-10. The solitary issue urged in the appeal filed by the revenue is whether the Ld. CIT(A) was justified in deleting the disallowance made u/s. 40(a)(ia) of the Act.
Details of the Judgment:
Issue 1: Disallowance u/s 40(a)(ia) of the Act
- The Assessing Officer disallowed transportation charges paid without tax deduction under sec. 194C.
- The assessee claimed the person was an employee, not a contractor.
- Ld. CIT(A) deleted the addition based on a decision by Cochin Bench of ITAT.
- Revenue argued citing decisions by Special Bench and High Courts.
- Assessee argued no contract with the person, only with M/S HPCL.
- Tribunal noted conflicting views of High Courts and decided to follow them.
- Ld. CIT(A) decision set aside, matters restored for fresh adjudication.
- Appeal by revenue and cross objection by assessee treated as allowed for statistical purposes.
This judgment highlights the interpretation and application of sec. 40(a)(ia) of the Act regarding tax deduction on payments, emphasizing the importance of contractual relationships and legal precedents in tax assessments.
-
2013 (6) TMI 720
Issues involved: Condonation of delay in filing an appeal.
Summary:
The applicant filed an application for condonation of delay in filing the appeal for 375 days. The reason for delay was attributed to the consultant's maternity and health problems. The applicant claimed to have handed over the necessary documents to the consultant in October, but the appeal was not filed until a recovery notice was received in December of the following year. The Tribunal noted that mere handing over of papers to the consultant does not constitute filing of the appeal unless signed by the appellant. Due to the negligence and inaction on the part of the applicant, the delay was not condoned, and the appeal along with the stay application was dismissed.
-
2013 (6) TMI 719
Issues involved: Appeal against CIT(A) order quashing assessment u/s 147 of the I. T. Act.
Summary:
The Revenue appealed against the CIT(A) order quashing the assessment u/s 147 of the I. T. Act, contending that the CIT(A) erred in annulling the assessment order passed by the Assessing Officer. The Assessing Officer received information that the assessee received a gift of Rs. 5,01,250/- not reflected in the return filed, leading to the belief that income chargeable to tax had escaped assessment. The assessee objected to the reopening of assessment, stating lack of valid reasons for forming such a belief. The CIT(A) annulled the assessment, citing insufficient reasons for reopening. The Revenue appealed to the Tribunal, but the Tribunal upheld the CIT(A) decision, noting the absence of independent material before the Assessing Officer to support the belief of income escaping assessment. Consequently, the appeal of the Revenue was dismissed.
In the detailed analysis, the CIT(A) found that the Assessing Officer initiated proceedings u/s 147/148 without verifying the contents of the ADI report, leading to a case of borrowed satisfaction. The appellant requested to produce the donor for confession, but no statement or confession was provided. The CIT(A) considered various case laws cited by the appellant's A.R., supporting the contention that the reassessment proceedings lacked validity due to the absence of opportunity for cross-examination. The CIT(A) concluded that the action taken by the Assessing Officer u/s 147/148 was not maintainable and annulled the assessment order. The Tribunal concurred with the CIT(A), emphasizing the necessity of independent material before initiating proceedings u/s 147 of the Act, which was absent in this case. Therefore, the Tribunal upheld the CIT(A) decision to annul the assessment, resulting in the dismissal of the Revenue's appeal.
-
2013 (6) TMI 718
Assessment made u/s 153A/143(3) - Held that:- A search and seizure operation was carried out at the premises of the asessee and therefore we do not find any infirmity in the order of the ld. CIT(A) and dismiss this ground of appeal of the assessee.
Disallowance of interest paid - Held that:- Investment of ₹ 26,26,319/- was made at the fag end of the year and only investment of ₹ 8,45,313/- was made under FDR throughout the year. He therefore estimated interest expenditure of ₹ 50,000/- on investment in FDR and allowed deduction for the same against the interest income of ₹ 1,71,688/- assessed by the AO. No material has been brought on record by the ld. AR of the assessee to controvert the above finding of the ld. CIT(A). No material was also brought on record by the ld. AR to show that any expenditure more than ₹ 50,000/- was incurred by the assessee on account of interest for earning of interest income.
-
2013 (6) TMI 717
Issues involved:
1. Recovery of Cenvat credit for using capital goods for manufacturing exempted goods
2. Eligibility for Cenvat credit of additional customs duty paid for imports made through courier
Issue 1 - Recovery of Cenvat credit for using capital goods for manufacturing exempted goods:
The appellant availed Cenvat credit on duty paid for capital goods used in manufacturing exempted goods. After reversing the credit with interest, a penalty was imposed equal to the wrongly availed Cenvat credit. The question arose whether penalty could be imposed in the absence of allegations of suppression of facts or misdeclaration. The appellant argued that once the amount was paid with interest, no penalty should be imposed. The Tribunal found the penalty unsustainable as per Section 11A(2B) of the Central Excise Act, 1944, stating that without allegations of suppression of facts, misdeclaration, or fraud, the proposal for penalty could not be upheld. Therefore, the penalty of &8377; 1,42,048/- was set aside.
Issue 2 - Eligibility for Cenvat credit of additional customs duty for imports made through courier:
The second issue revolved around the eligibility of the appellant for Cenvat credit of additional customs duty paid for imports made through courier, based on a photocopy of the Bill of Entry. The appellant cited a Tribunal decision supporting the acceptance of credit based on photocopies in the absence of allegations of non-receipt of inputs. However, the Revenue representative relied on a different Tribunal decision stating credit cannot be availed based on photocopies. The Tribunal considered the arguments and previous decisions, noting that the amount involved in this case was significant, unlike the case cited by the appellant. Consequently, the demand for Cenvat credit of &8377; 1,06,372/- was upheld with interest, and the penalty was sustained due to the extended period invoked for the credit taken on inputs imported through courier.
In conclusion, the Tribunal set aside the demand for Cenvat credit with interest and penalty related to capital goods, while upholding the demand for Cenvat credit on inputs imported through courier along with the corresponding penalty. The appeal was disposed of accordingly.
-
2013 (6) TMI 716
Whether, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is legally right in law in holding that the materials which are used in the execution of works contract is liable for exemption under section 3B(2)(c) of the Act?
Whether the assessee had converted the materials purchased into mosaic tiles in their own place of business and converted the raw materials purchased into finished product, that is mosaic tile, which is the different product manufactured from out of white cement, red oxide, etc.?
-
2013 (6) TMI 715
The High Court of Andhra Pradesh dismissed the appeal related to deduction under Sec. 80IC of the Income Tax Act for the assessment year 2008-2009. The Appellate Tribunal's decision to allow the deduction even though the return of income was filed late was upheld. The Tribunal's reasoning for allowing the deduction was considered valid, and the appeal was dismissed with no costs.
-
2013 (6) TMI 714
The appellate tribunal allowed the appellant to take Cenvat credit on aluminium foil purchased and paid excise duty for, based on Notification No. 24/2012-C.E. (N.T.). The Revenue agreed with the appellant's argument, leading to the appeal being allowed without pre-deposit.
-
2013 (6) TMI 713
Issues involved: Classification of imported goods, duty demand, appeal process, importer's rights.
Classification of imported goods: The petitioner, an importer of various items, sought to import Radiata Pine Short Length Off-Cut saw mill rejects, which were classified by the second respondent as standard pine wood, leading to duty demand. The petitioner filed appeals seeking to have the goods cleared based on the value shown in the Bill of Entry for future transactions.
Duty demand and appeal process: The petitioner satisfied the duty demanded for the imported goods but filed appeals (Exts. P1 and P2) before the first respondent challenging the classification and quantification of duty by the second respondent. The court directed the first respondent to consider and pass appropriate orders on the appeals after hearing the petitioner within three months from the date of the judgment.
Importer's rights: The court clarified that the petitioner's understanding of fixing duty based on the value shown in the Bill of Entry for future transactions was wrong and misconceived. The court emphasized that if the petitioner is aggrieved by the actions of the second respondent, the appropriate course of action is to challenge the classification and duty quantification through the appeal process.
In conclusion, the court disposed of the Writ Petition, directing the first respondent to address the appeals filed by the petitioner within a specified timeframe and instructing the petitioner to provide a copy of the judgment and the writ petition to the first respondent for further action.
-
2013 (6) TMI 712
Issues involved: Challenge to the validity of reassessment proceedings u/s 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, based on failure to disclose material facts u/s 143(3) for the assessment year 1998-99.
Summary:
The Appellate Tribunal ITAT Lucknow heard an appeal and cross objection challenging the correctness of the CIT (A)'s order regarding the assessment u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for the assessment year 1998-99. The cross objection raised the issue of the validity of the reassessment proceedings due to the expiry of four years from the original assessment and the lack of failure on the part of the assessee to disclose material facts. The Tribunal considered the legal position and factual matrix of the case.
The assessee contended that the assessment completed u/s 143(3) cannot be reopened after four years from the end of the relevant assessment year without any failure on the part of the assessee to disclose material facts. The reasons recorded for reopening the assessment did not indicate any such failure. The Departmental Representative argued that there were sufficient reasons to conclude that income had escaped assessment due to the failure to disclose all material facts.
The Tribunal noted that the law restricts reopening assessments completed u/s 143(3) beyond four years if there was a failure to disclose material facts. The reasons recorded for reopening did not fulfill this condition. Citing legal precedent, the Tribunal emphasized that reasons recorded by the Assessing Officer must be relied upon, and the absence of any failure to disclose material facts rendered the reassessment proceedings invalid. Consequently, the reassessment proceedings were quashed.
Since the reassessment proceedings were quashed, the issues regarding the correctness of additions made during the reassessment proceedings were deemed academic and not adjudicated upon. The cross objection filed by the assessee was allowed, and the appeal by the Assessing Officer was dismissed as infructuous.
-
2013 (6) TMI 711
Issues involved: Whether interest is chargeable on advances received by the appellant, whether the demand is time-barred, and whether any penalty is imposable.
Interest on advances: The appeal involved the question of whether interest is chargeable on advances received by the appellant. The Tribunal referred to Section 67 of the Act, which states that service tax is payable on any amount received as consideration for services provided or to be provided. The Tribunal noted that service tax is payable on the advances received in the quarter by the 5th of the month following the quarter. Since the appellants did not pay the tax on advances within the specified time, interest was deemed chargeable from the 5th of the month following the quarter to the date of payment.
Time-barred demand: The Tribunal considered the issue of whether the demand made through the Show Cause Notice was time-barred. The Notice was issued on 27.7.2009, demanding interest for the period January 2007 to March 2008. The appellant argued that the Notice was time-barred and relied on a Tribunal decision in the case of EMCO Ltd. vs. CCE. The Tribunal noted that there is no specific time limit prescribed for demanding interest under Section 75 of the Act. Citing a Supreme Court decision, the Tribunal held that the period of limitation applicable to the principal amount should also apply to the claim for interest. The Commissioner had upheld the extended period based on the appellant's failure to reflect advances in the original returns, which was considered as suppression. However, the Tribunal found that the Show Cause Notice was served after the appellant filed a revised return that included the advances, and therefore, the extended period was not justified. Consequently, the Tribunal held that the Show Cause Notice was time-barred, and as the demand was not sustainable on the limitation, there was no basis for imposing a penalty.
Decision: The Tribunal allowed the appeal in favor of the appellant, concluding that interest on advances was chargeable but the demand was time-barred, leading to the dismissal of the penalty.
-
2013 (6) TMI 710
Issues Involved:
1. Delay in issuing detention orders.
2. Consideration of all relevant documents by the detaining authority.
3. Application of mind by the detaining authority.
4. Fundamental right to personal liberty.
Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:
1. Delay in Issuing Detention Orders:
The court analyzed the nine-month delay between the release on bail (2nd May 2012) and the issuance of the detention orders (21st February 2013). The detaining authority received the proposal from the sponsoring authority on 22nd October 2012, six months after the bail, without any explanation for this delay. The court found this delay unsatisfactory, noting that no adverse notice was taken of the detenus during this period, and no application for bail cancellation was made. The court emphasized that mere delay is not necessarily fatal, but unreasonable and unexplained delay, as in this case, is. The court cited Hemlata Kantilal Shah v State of Maharashtra and Saeed Zakir Hussain Malik v State of Maharashtra to support its decision that the delay was inordinate and insufficiently explained, thereby snapping the "live link" between the alleged prejudicial activity and the preventive detention.
2. Consideration of All Relevant Documents by the Detaining Authority:
The court scrutinized whether all relevant documents were considered by the detaining authority. The detaining authority called for additional documents on 1st November 2012, which were received on 27th November 2012. However, there was ambiguity regarding whether these documents were considered together or in a piecemeal manner. The court noted that the reply to the show-cause notice, a crucial document, was not placed before the detaining authority. This omission was significant as the reply might have influenced the subjective satisfaction of the detaining authority. The court found that the detaining authority's process was disjointed and lacked proper application of mind.
3. Application of Mind by the Detaining Authority:
The court emphasized that the detaining authority must apply their mind to the entirety of the material before formulating the grounds for detention. The court found that the detaining authority's actions suggested a lack of proper application of mind, as there was no clarity on when the grounds for detention were finalized and whether all documents were considered. The court cited Jai Singh v State of J&K and Prakash Mehta v/s. Commissioner and Secretary, Government of Kerala and others to underline the necessity of a thorough application of mind by the detaining authority.
4. Fundamental Right to Personal Liberty:
The court reiterated that any action curbing the fundamental right to personal liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution must conform to the requirements of Article 22(5). The court highlighted that preventive detention laws must balance the need for public order with the protection of individual liberties. The court concluded that the procedural failures in this case undermined the constitutionally mandated safeguards, necessitating judicial intervention.
Conclusion:
The court found the delay in issuing the detention orders inordinate and insufficiently explained. The detaining authority failed to consider all relevant documents and did not apply their mind properly. The court emphasized the importance of protecting the fundamental right to personal liberty and ensuring that preventive detention laws are applied in a manner that conforms to constitutional safeguards. Consequently, the court quashed the detention orders and directed the release of the detenus.
-
2013 (6) TMI 709
Issues involved:
The issue involved in this case is whether certain services provided by the appellant to the Airport Authority are liable to excise duty under the Central Excise Act, 1944.
Summary of Judgment:
1. Documentation:
The appellant argued that documentation services provided do not relate to goods manufactured in India, and if taxable, should be tested under the Finance Act, 1994. The documentation was not found to be taxable under the Central Excise Act.
2. Installation and Check Out:
Although proposed to be taxed, installation and check out services did not survive in adjudication and were not subject to excise duty.
3. Training to Customer Personnel:
The training provided to customer personnel was deemed a pure service contract and not subject to taxation under the Central Excise Act.
4. Amortization of Cost:
The amortization of cost of tools and testing equipment was clarified to not relate to the goods manufactured by the appellant, and therefore, not subject to excise duty.
5. System Integration and Evaluation:
This aspect was dropped in adjudication, and it was emphasized that only documentation, training to customers, and amortization of cost were contentious issues for the Revenue.
6. Conclusion:
The appellant's case demonstrated that divisible contracts were executed, clearly separating supply from services provided. It was established that the major supply of goods was imported, with only minor parts manufactured by the appellant being subject to duty. As per the law, taxable services are governed by the Finance Act, 1994, and cannot be taxed under the Central Excise Act to add to the assessable value. Therefore, the appellant's appeal was successful, and no excise duty liability was found on the services provided.
-
2013 (6) TMI 708
Transfer pricing adjustment - selection of comparables - Held that:- Vishal Information Technologies Ltd. - most of the cost incurred by the company taken as comparable is outsourcing cost, as can be seen from the Annual report placed in the paper-book and ITAT, Mumbai in the case of Maersk Global Service Centre [2011 (11) TMI 465 - ITAT MUMBAI] has analysed and rejected this company as comparable, due to the reason that it has outsourced a considerable portion of its business and it is functionally different. This factor was also approved by the DRP in assessee’s own case in the later year, as can be seen from the copy of the order placed on record, for assessment year 2008-09. In view of this, we direct the Assessing Officer to exclude this company from the list of comparables.
Goldstone Infratech Ltd company cannot be considered as a comparable for the purpose of determining the ALP as the business model of the above company is different from that of the assessee. In this case, the foreign exchange revenue is less than 1% of the total turnover. Therefore, it fails the filter provided by the Assessing Officer, on the basis of the foreign exchange earnings. Further, the Revenue from BPO is failing over a period of three years.
Datamatic Financial Services Ltd. company fails in this filter adopted by the TPO, we direct the TPO to exclude this company from the list of comparables adopted.
Maple e-Solutions Ltd. - Since the DRP in assessee’s own case for assessment year 2007-08 also considered and excluded this company, we uphold the assessee’s objection in this regard and direct the Assessing Officer to exclude this company from the comparables adopted.
Nucleus Netsoft & GIS(India) Ltd. company cannot be selected as a comparable not only on the reason of failing employee cost filter, but also due to amalgamation during the year, which has changed the business model of the company.
Allowance of depreciation - Held that:- Since this issue was already considered and allowed by the CIT(A) in assessment year 2004-05, this can be considered subject to verification of (1) assessee’s contention that it has provided higher depreciation than what is normally required and (2) the working of average percentage of depreciation of various comparables ultimately selected. As seen from the table placed at page 379A, average was worked out at 8.63% . How this was arrived at could not be verified as many of the comparables have provided higher rate of depreciation than the assessee. Since these amounts could not be verified, the Assessing Officer is directed to examine the claim of depreciation adjustment again and then arrive at the average claim of depreciation of the comparables and then decide afresh whether any adjustment is required. Therefore, to that extent, claim of depreciation adjustment is restored to the file of the Assessing Officer for fresh consideration.
Risk adjustment - Held that:- It was submitted that since assessee does not have any marketing activities, a 35% adjustment is warranted for the difference in risks. It also submits that risk adjustment can also be computed under the Capital Asset Pricing Model(CAPM)/ Sharpe Model for risk adjustments. Since the application of the above decisions and facts herein are to be examined vis-à-vis the assessee’s business model, we, without giving any direction with reference to the risk adjustment and amount of risk adjustment required, restore the matter to the file of the Assessing Officer to reexamine this adjustment issue afresh, after considering the assessee’s submissions and decide the issue in accordance with the principles on the subject.
Inclusion of reimbursement transactions as part of operational cost - Held that:- Reimbursement costs should be excluded as they do not involve any functions to be performed so as to consider it for profitability purposes. See Four Soft Ltd. V/s. DCIT [2011 (9) TMI 634 - ITAT HYDERABAD]
Rejection of turnover of the UK branch operations as export turnover for the purpose of computing deduction u/s. 10A - Held that:- The assessee can raise a new claim before the appellate authority, and since it is a legal claim, which requires no examination of facts, the claim can be entertained.For allowing the deduction under S.10A/10B, other conditions are required to be satisfied, including the questions (a) whether the branch is rendering any BPO services; (b) whether the functions are similar; and (c) whether the incomes can be considered as income of STPI eligible for deduction, and for this purpose, we are of the opinion that the issue has to be considered on merits by the Assessing Officer. Therefore, while allowing this ground on the legal principle, for the purpose of verifying and quantifying the deduction, the matter is restored to the file of the Assessing Officer who should examine and consider deduction afresh in accordance with law, after giving due opportunity of hearing to the assessee
Re-characterisation of foreign exchange gains as interest income and thereby reducing the same from the profits of the business while computing deduction under S.10A.- Held that:- Since this issue is no longer res integra and since foreign exchange gain is on account of fluctuations of the foreign exchange received for the services rendered by the assessee, this has to be treated as business income and it has to be considered as profits of the business for computing the deduction under S.10A of the Act. The Assessing Officer is directed to treat accordingly
Exclusion of communication charges incurred by the assessee as attributable to the delivery of computer software outside India from the total turnover for the purposes of computing deduction under S.10A - Held that:- We agree in principle with alternate contention that data link charges considered as attributable to delivery of computer software outside India should be excluded from export turnover as well as total turnover while computing the deduction under S.10A. However, out of the data link charges spent by the assessee, how much is for intra and inter office services and how much is for delivery of services outside India has not been examined by the Assessing Officer. Therefore, in the interests of justice, we restore the issue for quantification of determining the communication charges to be excluded to the file of the Assessing Officer, to decide it on factual basis, and accordingly decide whether the communication charges should be excluded or not. In case any amount is to be excluded as attributable to delivery of services outside India, the same should be excluded both from both export and total turnover, while computing deduction under S.10A.
Interest under S.234B - Held that:- Levy of interest under S.234B is consequential in nature and the Assessing Officer is bound to follow the provisions of S.234B. Therefore, there is no need to adjudicate on this issue at present. We direct the Assessing Officer to consider the submissions of the assessee before levying interest under S.234B, if warranted. With these observations, this ground is considered rejected.
-
2013 (6) TMI 707
Issues involved: Delay in preferring the appeal, condonation of delay, non-suiting the appellant on technical ground.
The appellant challenged the impugned order passed by the Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, Ahmedabad, which refused to condone the delay of 182 days in preferring the appeal against the order passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise & Customs (Appeals), Surat.
The High Court heard the arguments from both parties and reviewed the application submitted by the appellant, along with the reasons provided to condone the delay. The Court noted that the delay was sufficiently explained by the appellant and observed that there was no deliberate delay on the part of the appellant. The Court emphasized that the appellant was not seeking to benefit from the delay in filing the appeal.
The Court held that the Tribunal should have condoned the delay and allowed the appellant to present the case on its merits instead of dismissing it on a technicality. Consequently, the Court set aside the impugned order and condoned the delay in preferring the appeal.
As a result of the judgment, the Tribunal was directed to proceed with the appeal filed by the appellant in accordance with the law and on its merits, without imposing any costs.
-
2013 (6) TMI 706
Recalling duty drawback awarded earlier – Whether reviewing and/or recalling earlier decision awarding duty drawback and eligibility of duty drawback under relevant export and import policy/foreign trade policy, against principle of natural justice – Held that:- without entering into merits of case and/or expressing anything on merits in favour of either party, petitioner directed to submit fresh detailed representation against decision of Jt. DGFT as well as in support of their case that they are eligible to get duty drawback with respect to goods in question under relevant export import policy/foreign trade policy to DGFT – Thereafter, DGFT to pass fresh order on such representation in accordance with law – Application needs to be disposed of.
-
2013 (6) TMI 705
Issues Involved:
The issue involves the liability of the respondent to pay Service Tax on maintenance and repair services billed to the Head Office, specifically in cases where invoices were cancelled and reissued.
Summary:
Issue 1: Liability to pay Service Tax on services rendered to Head Office
The respondent, M/s. Manugraph India Ltd., Unit No. Kodoli, Kolhapur, raised bills for maintenance and repair services rendered to the Head Office. The department contended that the respondent is liable to pay Service Tax on these charges. A notice was issued, and the demand was confirmed. The appellant appealed, arguing that services rendered to self are not taxable services. The lower appellate authority agreed with this contention and set aside the demand. The Revenue, aggrieved by this decision, filed an appeal before CESTAT Mumbai.
Decision: CESTAT Mumbai examined the situation and held that service by the branch to the Head Office cannot be considered a taxable service. Therefore, the question of payment of Service Tax on this service does not arise. Consequently, the appeal of the Revenue was dismissed for lacking merit.
End of Summary
-
2013 (6) TMI 704
The appeal was filed under section 35G of the Central Excise Act against an order passed by the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal. The appeal was dismissed as it was filed after the period of limitation had expired. The court found no substantial question of law involved and summarily dismissed the appeal.
-
2013 (6) TMI 703
Condonation of delay - Whether the Tax Appeal may be registered to file by giving it Paka number or not - Held that: - In the facts and circumstances of the case, time to deposit the cost which the applicant is liable to deposit pursuant to earlier order to 28.5.2013 - Under the circumstances, Registry may now give the Paka number to the Tax Appeal and place it for admission hearing.
............
|
9911796707
