Exigiblity to excise duty of the activity of assembling a Generator Set at site by the assessee using bought-out components - DG set is assembled and bolted to the concrete platform so that its operation is vibration free. The DG set could be easily unbolted and bought and sold. Therefore, DG set assembled at site cannot be held to be immovable property – held that they are goods and are marketable - DG set assembled at the site has to be held to be marketable and excisable
Woven greig fabric produced during the manufacture of FWC - Demand raised is in respect of heat treated fabric, before it is processed into FWC - Leviability of basic excise duty under the Additional Duties of Excise (Goods of Special Importance) Act, 1957 – held that duty is leviable unless goods are specifically exempted – revenue has not proved marketability of intermediate product - matter remanded to re-determine the marketability of product
Eligibility of the respondent IGE for S.S.I. Exemption Notification - adjudicating authority confirmed the demand, interest and imposed penalty on the proprietor on the ground that IGE had used logo “CDRAISE” of Germany Co. – respondent are using label on the machinery is not disputed and the contents of the label which has the logo as well as the name of the foreign company and the local manufacturer is not disputed – demand upheld
Valuation of goods which are transferred inter-units - goods cleared were assessed on provisional basis, paying higher amount of duty - appellant adopted a higher profit margin of 30% - appellant explained this adoption of higher margin only to take care of value fluctuation in respect of inputs which have gone into the manufacture of the goods cleared from their Chennai units – since there is no allegation of fraud, whatever duty paid is taken as credit by another unit, credit is not deniable
Commissioner (Appeals) has set aside the order-in-original imposing the penalties on the respondents on the ground that the appellants has discharged the entire service tax liability before 30/10/2004 - Commissioner (Appeals) has correctly followed the law as has been laid down by the various decision of the Tribunal - any reason for interference in the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) for such miniscule amount of Rs.2,651/- which was paid subsequently
Commissioner (Appeals) after taking into consideration the fact that the respondent deposited some amount immediately when revenue pointed out the same and exercised the discretion by reducing the penalty imposed under Section 76 & 78 - contention of the revenue is that as per the provisions of Section 78, the penalty should be equal to the amount of service tax, is rejected - no ground to interfere with the discretion exercised by the Commissioner (Appeals) u/s 80
Import of services – liability to pay tax - there is no dispute about the fact that the alleged taxable services had been provided by the non-resident foreign service provider from off shore and those services have been provided during 2002-03, 2003-04 and 2004-05 i.e. during period prior to 18-4-06, the appellant, on the issue of liability to pay the tax, have a strong prima facie case in their favour and in view of this, there is no need to go into other issues – stay granted
Held that collecting rentals for hiring the hoarding space was brought into the service tax net only w.e.f. 1-5-2006. In view of this for the prior period this would not at all be covered under the service tax net - Even though each activity is related to advertisement, the person carrying out each of the various activities will not be an Advertisement Agency - Prima facie, I find that the appellants have a strong case. Therefore, I grant full waiver of the pre-deposit
In view of decision of Madras HC in the case of CCE v. Vinbros and Company, held that blending and bottling of Indian Made Foreign Liquor amounts to manufacture as the end-product is commercially different from rectified spirit which is not fit for human consumption - therefore, appellant are not liable for Service tax under “business auxiliary service” - prima facie, we find that the applicant have a strong case in their favour – stay granted
Retrospective amendment – GTO service - final order was passed on the presumption that SCN was issued prior to that retrospective amendment and demand cannot be confirmed on the basis of SCN issued prior to amendment. The fact that corrigendum has been issued after the amendment is on record - as the final order was passed without taking into consideration the fact which was on record, there is an error apparent on record in the Final Order - hence the same is recalled
Appellants were maintaining and operating a power plant for their client and that they were paying service tax on the maintenance charges – demand from the appellants under the category of ‘management, maintenance or repair services’ - In view of decision in case of Operational Energy Group India Pvt. Ltd. v. CCE., stay is granted
Applicant, a Multi System Operator is receiving service from broadcaster - case of the Revenue is that the tax paid by the cable operators is not available to the applicant as input credit as no service has been received by the applicant from the cable operators - We find that the applicant availed the credit in respect of the Service tax paid by the recipient of the service as input service which is not permissible - Stay petition dismissed
Credit of service tax paid on mobile phones - in the grounds of appeal applicant has not said anything regarding the use of the mobile phone in or in relation to the manufacturer of goods - Applicant also raised the issue of time bar which is a mixed question of law and facts which can be gone into at the time of regular hearing. In these circumstances, applicant are granted partly stay
By the power vested u/s 84, Commissioner, directed for reviewing the OIO and vide his review order directed the assessee/applicant filed a reply why the penalty be not enhanced – appellant submit that said order as passed by the Commissioner, as a reviewing authority is in the violation of principles of natural justice - applicant was not issued SCN for enhancement of penalty as provided u/s 84 – hence stay is granted
Appellant reversed credit on objection of department which they took of tax paid on GTA service for outward transportation of its final products - demand of interest affirmed for the period between availment of credit and the reversal of the same - held that the impugned service was covered by definition of ‘input service’ and that the assessee could utilize the credit for payment of service tax due. It is argued that the impugned demand of interest is not therefore sustainable – stay granted
Demand confirmed treating the applicant as provider of business auxiliary service to the financial company - applicant entered into an agreement with the finance company to promote their retailer finance - In the appeal memo the contention is that applicants are entitled for exemption under notification No. 14/04 & 25/04 and also that the services were provided by the applicant on behalf of the finance company and not to the finance company –Stay petition is allowed
Benefit of Notification No. 6/2005-S.T., denied on the ground that the appellants are providing branded service - Contention of the appellants is that they are only selling goods of ‘Koutons’ - Contention of the Revenue is that any taxable service provided by a person under brand name/trade name, whether registered or not of any person will dis-entitled for the benefit of notification - in this case the appellants are selling goods - prima facie strong case in favour of assessee – stay granted
Application for waiver of pre-deposit - Benefit of notification No. 32/2004-ST. was denied to the applicants on the ground that necessary declaration was not given on the consignment note. Declaration as required under notification was filed on yearly basis supported by Chartered Engineer certificate. In view of this pre-deposit of amount of Service tax is waived for hearing of the appeal. Stay petition is allowed.
The Appellate Tribunal CESTAT, Chennai ruled that there would be a waiver of pre-deposit and stay of recovery in respect of interest and penalty since the service tax was paid under protest. No representation was made for the appellants during the hearing.
Club and association service - admitted fact is that the club started functioning with effect from 4th September 2006. As the service has been provided with effect from 4th September 2006 and service of club is liable to Service tax with effect from 16-6-2005, therefore, prima facie, it is not a fit case for total waiver of amount of Service tax
9911796707
