|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 281 to 300 of 1194 Records
-
2013 (8) TMI 917
Issues involved: Interpretation of CENVAT credit eligibility u/s service tax law for shared services among multiple firms, procedural compliance in credit transfer, imposition of interest and penalty.
Interpretation of CENVAT credit eligibility:
The appellant occupied premises with other chartered accountant firms and availed input services like Housekeeping, Security, Xerox, and Rent services. The appellant took credit of service tax paid on these services and transferred the credit to the other firms. Proceedings were initiated against the appellant, questioning the eligibility of the appellant for CENVAT credit not proportionate to them, which was transferred to other firms. The conclusion was reached that the appellant is not eligible for the credit not attributable to them proportionately, resulting in the denial of credit, along with interest and penalty imposition.
Procedural compliance in credit transfer:
The issue arose due to the appellant choosing to take the credit in their books for the entire amount of service tax paid, even though the services received were only proportionate to their occupancy. The correct procedure would have been to obtain invoices in the name of individual firms proportionate to the services rendered to them. It was emphasized that all the 4 firms were eligible for the credit taken, and the total amount taken was not found to be inadmissible credit, except for the proportionate part. The key issue was identified as a procedural one, highlighting the importance of following the correct procedure in credit transfer to avoid discrepancies.
Imposition of interest and penalty:
After considering both sides, it was determined that the appellant had a case for waiver, as the issue primarily revolved around procedural compliance rather than ineligibility for credit. Therefore, the requirement of pre-deposit was waived, and a stay against recovery was granted during the pendency of the appeal. This decision was made to address the procedural error in credit transfer and to ensure fairness in the application of CENVAT credit rules.
-
2013 (8) TMI 916
Issues: Jurisdiction for refund claim u/s service tax payment in different Commissionerates.
Summary:
The appellant, engaged in maintenance and service of transformers, was held liable to pay service tax only from 16/06/2005 by the Mangalore Central Excise Commissionerate. The appellant paid &8377; 5,74,884/- and became eligible for a refund of &8377; 3,51,510/-. However, the refund claim filed in the Bangalore Commissionerate was rejected for lack of jurisdiction. The advocate argued that the refund should be granted based on the Tribunal's decision in a similar case. The Tribunal found that the refund claim should have been forwarded to the jurisdiction Commissioner or sanctioned by the Assistant Commissioner in Bangalore. The evidence of payment was submitted, confirming the connection between the payment and the issue. The Tribunal directed the appellant to approach the authority in the Mangalore Commissionerate for the refund claim, considering the date of filing in Bangalore as the starting point for the decision process. The appeal was disposed of accordingly.
-
2013 (8) TMI 915
The Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Ahmedabad allowed the appeal filed by the assessee regarding the demand of differential duty based on Rule 10A of Central Excise Rules, 2002. The Tribunal referred to a previous order in the same assessee's case and set aside the impugned order, granting appeal and stay.
-
2013 (8) TMI 914
If the goods were exported and had the assessee deposited the amount, it would have been refunded under the 2007-Notification; In view of the same, prima facie, it cannot be said there was intention to evade tax and the assessee has a strong case on merit.
-
2013 (8) TMI 913
Issues involved: Classification of Maize Starch Powder (MSP) u/s 1103.00 or 3505
Classification u/s 1103.00: The appeal was filed by CCE, Ahmedabad-II against the classification of Maize Starch Powder (MSP) manufactured by M/s. Maize Products, Ahmedabad, under 1103.00 as ordinary starch and not under Chapter heading 3505 as modified starch. The Revenue argued that MSP is a category of modified starch under CE TH 3505. However, the Respondent contended that a previous order had classified MSP under CE TH 1103.00, and the current appeal by the Revenue was rejected based on the earlier decision. The Bench upheld the classification of MSP under CETH 1103.00 as per the previous order, thus rejecting the Revenue's appeal.
Significant Phrases:
- Classification of MSP under CETH 1103.00
- MSP as ordinary starch, not modified starch
- Previous order rejecting Revenue's appeal
- Upheld classification under CETH 1103.00
Operative portion of the order: The appeal filed by the Revenue against the classification of Maize Starch Powder (MSP) under 1103.00 was rejected based on a previous order that had classified MSP under the same category. The Bench upheld the classification under CETH 1103.00, thereby dismissing the Revenue's appeal.
-
2013 (8) TMI 912
Issues Involved:
1. Review of the judgment and order dated 06.07.2012.
2. Jurisdiction and scope of review under Article 137 of the Constitution of India.
3. Criteria for entertaining a review petition.
4. Examination of the original orders and FIR related to the Taj Heritage Corridor Project.
5. Validity of the CBI's actions and jurisdiction in lodging the FIR.
Analysis:
1. Review of the Judgment and Order Dated 06.07.2012:
The petitioner, Kamlesh Verma, sought a review of the Supreme Court's judgment dated 06.07.2012, which quashed the FIR against Ms. Mayawati related to disproportionate assets. The Court had previously held that the CBI exceeded its jurisdiction as the order dated 18.09.2003 did not contain any specific direction regarding lodging of FIR in the matter of disproportionate assets against Ms. Mayawati.
2. Jurisdiction and Scope of Review under Article 137 of the Constitution of India:
Article 137 provides the Supreme Court with the power to review its judgments or orders. This power is subject to any law made by Parliament or rules made under Article 145. The jurisdiction of review is not equivalent to an appeal and is limited to correcting errors apparent on the face of the record.
3. Criteria for Entertaining a Review Petition:
Order XLVII, Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, and Part VIII Order XL of the Supreme Court Rules, 1966, outline the grounds for review:
- Discovery of new and important matter or evidence.
- Mistake or error apparent on the face of the record.
- Any other sufficient reason.
The Court emphasized that a review is not a rehearing and cannot be used to reargue the same points unless there is a glaring omission or patent mistake.
4. Examination of the Original Orders and FIR Related to the Taj Heritage Corridor Project:
The Court reviewed the sequence of orders and actions leading up to the FIR:
- The CBI was directed to investigate the Taj Heritage Corridor Project and verify the assets of the persons involved.
- An FIR was lodged against Ms. Mayawati for disproportionate assets based on the CBI's inquiry.
- The Court had previously quashed this FIR, stating that the orders did not authorize such an investigation.
The petitioner argued that the FIR was lodged under the Court's directions, but the Court reiterated that its earlier orders did not authorize a roving inquiry into Ms. Mayawati's assets.
5. Validity of the CBI's Actions and Jurisdiction in Lodging the FIR:
The Court concluded that the CBI exceeded its jurisdiction in lodging the FIR against Ms. Mayawati for disproportionate assets. The investigation was supposed to be limited to the Taj Heritage Corridor Project, and there was no specific direction from the Court to investigate her assets beyond this project.
Conclusion:
The review petition was disposed of, reaffirming the original judgment. The Court emphasized that the review jurisdiction is limited and cannot be used to reargue the case. The CBI's actions in lodging the FIR were beyond the scope of the Court's directions, and there was no error apparent on the face of the record to warrant a review.
-
2013 (8) TMI 911
Whether the Tribunal was correct in confirming the estimation of first sales turnover holding that the petitioner has not maintained stock account whereas party has maintained separate stock accounts for each time.
the inter-mingling of taxable and non-taxable goods not allowed.
-
2013 (8) TMI 910
Imposition of penalties u/s 76 and 78 - invocation of section 80 - the appellant's case is that major amount of tax with interest was paid before the issuance of SCN - Held that: - The present appellant is a lady who took over the working of the appellant only from 2005-2006 onwards and the entire disputed Service Tax along with interest, was paid - It is not the case of the Revenue that appellant has recovered the Service Tax from the service recipients and retained the same. No specific fact has been disclosed in SCN as to how there was wilful misstatement/suppression on the part of the appellant with an intention to evade Service Tax - this is a fit case for invocation of section 80 - penalty set aside - appeal allowed - decided in favor of assessee.
-
2013 (8) TMI 909
The Appellate Tribunal CESTAT New Delhi allowed the appeal, stating that no service tax should be levied as the appellant did not engage the service of a goods transport agency, but the service was provided by the supplier of the goods using a transporter.
-
2013 (8) TMI 908
Condonation of delay - Held that: - satisfactory cause is shown for the delay namely availment of a remedy invoking the constitutional jurisdiction of the High Court, we are inclined to condone the delay of 9 days in preferring the appeal - delay condoned - application allowed.
Waiver of pre-deposit - grant of stay of all proceedings - Held that: - N/N. 45/2010-ST dated 20.07.2010 issued in exercise of powers conferred on Central Government under Section 11C of the Central Excise Act, 1944 read with Section 83 of the Finance Act, 1994 has exempted from the levy of service tax payable on said taxable services relating to transmission and distribution of electricity provided by the service provider to the service receiver, during the period upto 26.02.2010 - The period in issue in the present case is 01.06.2007 to 07.07.2009 and undisputedly the petitioner has provided services relating to transmission of electricity to various Electricity Distribution Companies, including the Power Grid Corporation of India and West Bengal State Electricity Board etc. - pre-deposit waived and stay granted from all proceedings - application allowed.
-
2013 (8) TMI 907
Issues involved: Appeal against demand confirmation, Penalty under Section 76 of the Finance Act.
Appeal against demand confirmation: The Revenue filed an appeal against the impugned order confirming a demand of Rs. 62,78,488/- with interest. The adjudicating authority did not impose any penalty under Section 76 of the Finance Act. The case revolved around service providers under the category of Advertising Agency who availed credit for input services received at branch offices. The Revenue argued that since the head office was not registered with the Revenue and did not obtain centralized registration, the credit was wrongly availed. However, the Tribunal found that there was no case of non-payment of Service Tax. It was noted that if the head office wrongly availed credit for services related to branch offices, the branch offices were legally entitled to take credit. Consequently, the Tribunal dismissed the appeal against the demand confirmation.
Penalty under Section 76 of the Finance Act: Section 76 of the Finance Act stipulates that any person liable to pay Service Tax, who fails to pay such tax, shall pay a penalty not less than Rs. 100/- for every day of such failure. In this case, the Revenue contended that since the respondents wrongly availed credit, they were liable for penalty under Section 76. However, the Tribunal held that as there was no failure to pay Service Tax, the penalty under Section 76 was not applicable. The Tribunal found no infirmity in the impugned order and consequently dismissed the appeal on this issue as well.
-
2013 (8) TMI 906
Issues involved: Review of Stay Order directing pre-deposit u/s 35C of the Central Excise Act, 1944.
Issue 1: Review of Stay Order directing pre-deposit
The application sought review of Stay Order No. SO/1319/2012-CU(DB), directing the petitioner/appellant to deposit &8377; 5 lakhs within four weeks and report compliance by 25-2-2013. The Tribunal noted non-compliance with the order and observed that failure to comply led to the rejection of the appeal. The miscellaneous application was filed under Section 35C of the Central Excise Act, 1944, which provides procedures for adjudication of disputes, including Service Tax matters. The Tribunal clarified that its power to revisit orders is limited to final orders under sub-section (1) of Section 35C, not interlocutory orders like the one directing pre-deposit. The Tribunal emphasized the absence of legislative authority to review interlocutory orders, except for correcting typographical or mathematical errors.
Issue 2: Jurisdiction to review interlocutory orders
The Tribunal highlighted that the power to review interlocutory orders, such as those directing pre-deposit, is not explicitly granted by legislation. While the Tribunal has inherent power to correct errors, the review of interlocutory orders requires specific legislative authorization. The petitioner/appellant's written submissions referenced various judgments to argue against liability for Service Tax under cargo handling service. Despite the arguments presented, the Tribunal concluded that it lacked the jurisdiction to review the interlocutory order dated 12-12-2013 and therefore dismissed the application.
-
2013 (8) TMI 905
Issues involved: Interpretation of Rule 6(5) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 regarding availing Cenvat credit on 'Management, Maintenance or Repair Services' under Section 65(105)(zzg) of the Finance Act, 1994.
Summary:
The appeal was filed against Order-in-Original No. 68/2012/C, dated 30-11-2012 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise & Customs, Nagpur. The appellant, M/s. Indo Rama Synthetics (I) Ltd., Nagpur availed Cenvat credit of Service Tax paid on 'Management, Maintenance or Repair Services' for their factory. The dispute arose when the department demanded recovery of proportionate Cenvat credit for electricity supplied to Maharashtra State Electricity Board (MSEB). The case was adjudicated, and the demand was confirmed along with interest and penalties.
The appellant argued that as per Rule 6(5) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004, credit of the whole Service Tax paid on specified services shall be allowed even if the service is used partly in relation to the manufacture of exempted goods. Citing relevant case laws, the appellant contended that they are eligible for credit as the electricity was consumed in the manufacture of dutiable and exempted goods.
The Revenue reiterated the findings of the adjudicating authority, but the Tribunal found merit in the appellant's contention. The Tribunal noted that Rule 6(5) allows availing credit even if the service is used partly in relation to exempted goods. Referring to a similar case, the Tribunal held that the appellant is entitled to take credit on 'Management, Maintenance or Repair Services' as provided under Rule 6(5) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004.
Accordingly, the impugned order was set aside, and the appeal was allowed. The stay petition was also disposed of.
-
2013 (8) TMI 904
Issues involved:
The issues involved in this case are related to the refund claim filed by the appellant, a Merchant-Exporter, for services of Clearing and Forwarding and courier services used in the export of goods, and the rejection of the refund claim due to failure to file the mandatory declaration in Form A-2 for allotment of STC code number.
Refund Claim and Declaration Requirement:
The appellant, a Merchant-Exporter, filed a refund claim for services used in export as per Notification No. 7/2009-S.T. However, as a Merchant-Exporter not registered under Central Excise, they were required to file a declaration in Form A-2 for STC code allotment before filing the refund claim in Form A-1. The appellant did not fulfill this requirement, leading to the rejection of the refund claim. The absence of the declaration and STC code allotment was deemed mandatory before filing the refund claim by a merchant-manufacturer.
Denial of Natural Justice:
The appellant argued that the rejection of the refund claim without a personal hearing by the Asstt. Commissioner amounted to a denial of natural justice. They requested a remand for a de novo decision after granting a personal hearing. However, the rejection was upheld as the appellant did not comply with the mandatory declaration requirement for STC code allotment.
Adjudication and Conclusion:
The Adjudicating Authority held that the appellant's failure to file the mandatory declaration in Form A-2 and obtain an STC code number before the refund claim rendered the claim correctly rejected. Despite the lack of a show cause notice and personal hearing at the original adjudication stage, the rejection was deemed valid due to the appellant's ineligibility to apply for a refund without fulfilling the declaration requirement. The Commissioner (Appeals) had already provided a hearing, further supporting the validity of the rejection. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed, affirming the rejection of the refund claim.
(Order dictated in the open Court)
-
2013 (8) TMI 903
Issues involved: Appeal against demand of Service Tax for Consulting Engineer Service u/s 65(31) of the Finance Act, 1994.
Summary:
The appellant, a body corporate engaged in chemical manufacturing, appealed against a demand for Service Tax categorized as Consulting Engineer Service u/s 65(31) of the Finance Act, 1994. The appellant argued that as a manufacturing entity, they do not fall under the scope of Consulting Engineer Service, citing the definition provided in the Act and referencing a decision by the Hon'ble Karnataka High Court. The revenue contended that the appellant did provide Consulting Engineer Service in various fields to clients, justifying the demand. The Tribunal noted the definition of Consulting Engineer Service under Section 65(31) of the Finance Act, 1994, and referenced the Karnataka High Court decision which clarified that companies were not included under this definition prior to a certain amendment. Considering this, the Tribunal set aside the demand, ruling in favor of the appellant due to their nature as a manufacturing entity. The appeal was allowed, granting the appellant any consequential relief as per the law.
-
2013 (8) TMI 902
Stay petition - Waiver of pre-deposit - Held that: - we dismiss the appeal of M/s.Gold Star Pharmaceuticals Pvt.Ltd. for non compliance with the provisions of section 35F of Central Excise Act, 1944 read with stay order No. No.55665-55669/2013 dated 10.1.2013.
-
2013 (8) TMI 901
The Appellate Tribunal CESTAT NEW DELHI granted waiver of pre-deposit and stayed further proceedings in the case, citing similar circumstances in a previous order. The appeal will be pending until disposal.
-
2013 (8) TMI 900
The appeal was dismissed as not maintainable by the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT MUMBAI because it related to a claim for a rebate under Rule 18 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002, which falls under the jurisdiction of the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals). The appellant was granted liberty to file an appeal before the competent authority.
-
2013 (8) TMI 899
The High Court of Punjab and Haryana dismissed the appeal but allowed the appellant to deposit the duty amount with interest within 2 months. The appellant had already deposited Rs. 42 lakhs in cash and could adjust the remaining amount from the Cenvat Credit Account. The appellant was granted liberty to seek adjustment of any duty amount along with interest payable in accordance with the law.
-
2013 (8) TMI 898
The Supreme Court dismissed a Special Leave Petition as not pressed. Another Special Leave Petition was granted leave, and it was connected with a related Civil Appeal. The pendency of the appeals would not prevent enforcement of an order.
............
|
9911796707
