Home Case Index All Cases Service Tax 2008 2008 2008 (3) Service Tax - 2008 (3) This

Law	-- All -- GST Income Tax Benami Property Customs Corporate Laws Securities / SEBI Insolvency & Bankruptcy FEMA 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-- 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 >= 3 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 21 to 40 of 97 Records

• 2008 (3) TMI 270
  

  As compliance is not reported, the appeal is dismissed for non-compliance.

  
  
  ... ...
  ... ... ..... tended by two weeks and the case was ordered to be listed on 28.3.2008 i.e. today. Today the case was taken up in the morning session and as none appeared, passed over. When the case was called the second time after luncheon break, again none appeared. As compliance is not reported, the appeal is dismissed for non-compliance. (Dictated in the open Court)

  ---

• 2008 (3) TMI 269
  

  Computation of total receipt in respect of commercial coaching service - there is no evidence on record to show in addition to Rs.5,71,700/-, the appellant has also received Rs.3,50,000/- from their customers for providing taxable service - there is merit in the contention of the appellant and the total receipt of Rs.5,71,700/- are to be treated as inclusive of Service Tax – held that amount of Service Tax is to be requantified

  ---

• 2008 (3) TMI 268
  

  Commissioner (Appeals) in the impugned order allowed the payment of Service Tax on GTA from Cenvat account. The Revenue’s appeal is on the ground that the Service Tax on GTA cannot be paid from the Cenvat account. This issue is already settled in many decisions against the Revenue - no merit in these appeals, the same are dismissed.

  ---

• 2008 (3) TMI 267
  

  Appeal is filed by the revenue on the ground that the Commissioner has wrongly held that the respondents are entitled for tax-cum value - Commissioner (Appeals) has remanded the matter to the adjudicating authority in respect of calculation of service tax liability as the respondents are only disputing the same. As the issue has already been remanded to adj. authority, the adj. authority shall decide the matter afresh after considering the decision of the SC in the case of Amrit Agro Industries

  ---

• 2008 (3) TMI 266
  

  Assessee’s submission is that the services on the recipient of the engineering services are taxable from 1-1-2006 and not for the earlier period - Without going into the merits of the case, we find that the issue requires deeper scrutiny and applicant has not made out a prima facie case for complete waiver of the confirmed amount of Service tax

  ---

• 2008 (3) TMI 255
  

  Interconnectivity Usage Charges (IUC) – Board Circular No. 91/2/07-S.T., dated 12-3-2007 has clarified that Service tax is not leviable on the interconnectivity usage charges and it is also clarified that the charges are required to be added from the date of passing of the Finance Bill, 2007 – period in question pertains to the earlier period - Therefore in terms of the said circular, the appellants are not required to discharge service tax on these charges collected by them – stay granted

  ---

• 2008 (3) TMI 245
  

  Mere transportation of materials cannot come under Cargo Handling Services - Steamer Agents had already included the Service Tax in their bills raised to appellants - so, there is no question of payment of Service Tax again - services rendered by the appellant to foreign ship owners by way of identifying & procuring the services of Steamer Agents, CHA, Stevedores for ships is covered under Business Auxiliary Service, not under Steamer Agent Services as wrongly held in the impugned order

  ---

• 2008 (3) TMI 244
  

  Delay in payment of tax - appellants are filing the returns regularly – entire tax with interest deposited before issue of SCN - finding of the Adjudicating Authority is reasonable and has rightly dropped the penalty under Section 80 - Accordingly, the impugned revisionary order of Commissioner of imposition of penalty u/s 76 is set aside and the order of the Adjudicating Authority is restored

  ---

• 2008 (3) TMI 243
  

  Royalty charges collected from M/s. Air India for ground handling, exchange facilities etc. & Licence fee on Advertising, Cargo Agents building, Car park, for garbage disposal etc. - Submission of appellant is that amended section will not bring above activities under the category of ‘Airport services’, as contended by revenue – in view of stay order given in assessee’s own case, pre-deposit of Rs. 10 lakh against demand of around Rs. 74 lakh is ordered - stay partly granted

  ---

• 2008 (3) TMI 242
  

  Appellants are required to pre-deposit penalty - allegation against the appellants are that they have utilized the services of foreign consultants for getting Food Drugs Authority (FDA) approval to sell their products in American markets and also the services relating to patent approval in USA the U.S. Patent Act - appellants have deposited the Service Tax, penalty and interest under protest, therefore, the stay application is rejected as infructuous

  ---

• 2008 (3) TMI 241
  

  Applicant paying tax on GTA service as deemed service provider - SCN was issued to deny the abatement of 25% as the concession was available only to the goods transport agency and not to the recipient – commissioner directed appellant to pay tax without availing abatement holding the person paying tax is not relevant - decision of the Commissioner is, prima facie, contrary to the clear proposal in the SCN - waiver and stay of recovery of dues given

  ---

• 2008 (3) TMI 235
  

  Transportation through pipeline can neither be treated as “clearing and forwarding agent’s service” nor “business auxiliary service - From 16.6.05 incorporating sub-clause (zzz) to Section 65 (105) of Finance Act, 1994, transport of crude oil through pipeline was brought to ambit of tax – in view of above enactment and Circular BI/6/2005-TRU dated 27.7.05 impugned order is set aside – assessee’s appeal allowed

  ---

• 2008 (3) TMI 234
  

  Demand has been confirmed on the ground that the applicants have rendered services as Management Consultancy - amounts of demand are only Rs. 54,575 and Rs. 39,014 respectively – appellants are directed to pre-deposit the entire amount confirmed in each case without going into the merits of the matter, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of this order and on such deposit, pre-deposit of the penalty amounts shall stand waived

  ---

• 2008 (3) TMI 224
  

  Commissioner by relying on decisions of tribunal in another cases, held that there is no restriction for utilization of credit by the manufacturer towards payment of Service Tax - contention of revenue is that the decision of the Tribunal in those cases is not accepted by the revenue, the appeal has been filed - revenue has not produced any order staying the operation of the order passed by Tribunal - Hence in view of those decisions, there is no infirmity in the order of Comm. (A)

  ---

• 2008 (3) TMI 217
  

  Activities in relation to import and clearance of crude oil and natural gas, raw materials, through a private jetty owned by clients – since appellant is not authorized by Port for doing such activities, he cannot be treated as providing “Port Services” - as per the definition given u/s 65(82), “Port Services” are those which are rendered by a port or a person authorized by a port. - prima facie case in favour of appellants – stay application is allowed

  ---

• 2008 (3) TMI 212
  

  Appellant providing clearing and forwarding service - applicant received about Rs. 94 lakhs as service charges and claims about Rs. 78 lakhs, as relatable to activities which are not covered by the services as C/F agent - Chartered Accountant certificate produced by appellant in their support, is not supported by relevant document evidence - applicant has not made out a prima facie case for total waiver of service tax demanded

  ---

• 2008 (3) TMI 211
  

  ‘Consultancy Agreements’ with foreign companies in connection with their setting up of projects or undertaking certain works in India – demand raised under ‘Management Consultant Service’ and ‘Business Auxiliary Service’ – applicant’s claim that the agreements are for execution of work and not relating to rendering consultancy/advice is not prima facie, acceptable - applicants have not made out a case for full waiver of Service Tax demanded

  ---

• 2008 (3) TMI 203
  

  Appellant, PSU - as the appellants have already filed an application before Cabinet Secretary to seek permission to pursue the appeal, the Commissioner’s proceeding to recover the amount is not justified - Commissioner should not recover the amount till such time the matter is decided by the COD – appellant’s appeal is dismissed for want of clearance, however, granting liberty to file an application for restoration of appeal as and when they get the clearance from the Committee of Secretaries

  ---

• 2008 (3) TMI 202
  

  Service of commercial and industrial construction service - While determining the gross value of the services, applicant has not disclosed and has not included the value of cement and steel received free from the recipients – since entire amount of duty stands paid before issue of SCN and therefore, we hold that it is a fit case for waiver of penalties and interest

  ---

• 2008 (3) TMI 201
  

  Taxability of “Tour Operator Service” - demand is for the period of April, 2001 to Sept. 2005 - Prior to 10-9-2004 the definition of Tour Operator was a person who hold a ‘tourist permit’ granted under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 to undertake tour operator business – hence for the demand prior to 10.9.04, no service tax is leviable, if the vehicles are not registered as Tourist Vehicles – demand for the period after 10.9.04 are justified – hence stay not granted completely

  ---

12345