|
Advanced Search Options
Service Tax - Case Laws
Showing 41 to 60 of 97 Records
-
2008 (3) TMI 200
Booking air passage tickets - Appellant is contending that there is gross violation of natural justice as department has not given the worksheet for arriving at the tax liability despite their persistent request - appellants submitted that at least the Commissioner (A) could have given a copy of the said worksheet to them – appellants have deposited the tax liability due by them and the excess liability is not sustainable including penalties - stay application allowed
-
2008 (3) TMI 197
Appellants, PSUs are contesting the levy of Service Tax on the ground that they are exempted by Notification No. 3/1994 – appellants plea is acceptable - appellants have already deposited the majority of the amount and the balance amount could come within the exempted category - Therefore, the plea for waiver of balance of deposit of tax, penalty and interest is acceptable. The stay application is allowed
-
2008 (3) TMI 193
Appellants are covered under “Storage and Warehousing services” and “Cargo Handling services” – registration taken only from March, 2004 - bona fide belief that they were not covered under both the services - Revenue has invoked larger period – no intention to evade duty – since appellants having voluntarily depositing the amount and there is a ground to consider the plea of time-bar, stay is granted
-
2008 (3) TMI 187
Respondents are licensed auctioneers – revenue contend that their activity is taxable under the ‘C&F Agency’ Services – after scrutiny of impugned activity and condition incorporated in licence, it become obvious that, there was no clearing or forwarding activity involved while the licensee acted only as an auctioneer – Mere receiving and storing goods for auctioning them has nothing to do with clearing and/or forwarding operations – hence revenue appeal is dismissed
-
2008 (3) TMI 182
Business of Auxiliary Service (BAS) – demand contested for the period prior to 1-5-06 - It is submitted that the same service cannot get classified under two different entries u/s 65[clause (104c) & clause (19)] - there is substance in submission of appellants that, for period prior to 1-5-06, they are not liable to pay tax on the services rendered by them, in the category of “BAS” - appellants have made out prima facie case – stay granted for the demand related to period prior to 1.5.06
-
2008 (3) TMI 179
Applicant is basically a patent holder - Commissioner held them as rendering the services under the category of consulting engineer and confirmed demand - contention that agreements for transfer of technology/know-how can not considered to fall under category of consulting engineer – impugned services were brought under tax net only w.e.f. 10-9-2004 under the head intellectual property service - prima facie case in applicant’s favour and accordingly entitled to waiver of pre-deposit
-
2008 (3) TMI 178
Appellant’s contention is that the service taker of C&F Agents service was not liable to discharge service tax for the period 16-7-1997 to 31-8-1999 (material period) – as per Notification No. 7/99-S.T. dated 23-8-1999, the liability to pay the service tax was shifted to Clearing and Forwarding Agents. Therefore, upto 31-8-1999, the service receivers had to pay the service tax in respect of commission paid to C&F Agents – refund rightly denied – assessee’s appeal dismissed
-
2008 (3) TMI 177
Goods Transport Agency - applicant is both a recipient of service as well as a deemed Service tax provider - As a deemed Service tax provider, the duty has been paid by them from Cenvat account and the question of their preparing TR-6 challan does not arise - payment of Tax and eligibility to the credit is not in dispute – therefore, the invoice prepared by the applicant to themselves indicating the Service tax paid by them may qualify for taking credit – stay granted
-
2008 (3) TMI 176
Goods Transport Agency (GTA) service availed by the appellants for transportation of their inputs – revenue submits that, in terms of Rule 2(1)(d)(v), the appellants are liable to pay service tax on the amount covered by the turnkey contractor’s invoice and paid by the appellants - modus operandi of the appellants seems to have been to evade tax – in view of financial hardship of appellant, stay is partly granted
-
2008 (3) TMI 175
Whether credit could be availed of the duty paid on input capital goods & the Service tax paid on input services as a manufacturer of excisable goods & be utilized towards payment of Service Tax on service availed from GTA - appellant will be deemed to be an output service provider so he is entitled to avail credit towards payment of tax on the output service and, therefore, the impugned order directing the appellant to pay Service tax in cash is not in accordance with law – stay granted
-
2008 (3) TMI 171
Services of tour operators by hiring out the vehicles, for picking and dropping of employees and children - revenue submit that the word ‘tour’ will cover impugned services – for the period between October 2000 to September 2004 till definition of “tour operator” got amended, issue is settled in assessee’s favor - but for the period from October 2004 to March 05, we find that the issue needs to be gone into detail, which will be possible only at the time of final hearing – stay partly granted
-
2008 (3) TMI 170
Whether Cenvat credit could be availed of the duty paid on input capital goods and the service tax paid on input services as a manufacturer of excisable goods and be utilized towards payment of Service Tax on service availed from GTA - service provided by him will be deemed to be an output service u/r 2 - prima facie, of the view that the appellant is entitled to avail of Cenvat credit towards payment of service tax on the output service - stay application is thus allowed
-
2008 (3) TMI 163
Whether the service tax credits with regard to the Mobile Phones and repair and maintenance charges of Motor Vehicles qualify to be ‘input service’ for the purpose of availment of service tax credit - credit of service tax paid on mobile phone is admissible - applicants have contended that the Motor Vehicles are provided to their officers and employees for use in carrying on the applicant’s business, are eligible for credit – there is force in the submissions of the applicants – stay granted
-
2008 (3) TMI 154
Demand - cable operator - appellants admitted that they have started MSO (Multi System operator) operation in December, 2004. Therefore, inclusion of amount (received during the year 2004-05) in question in the assessable value is rightly made - As turn-over of the appellants for the year in dispute, is more than 4 lac the benefit of not. 6/2005 is rightly denied - appellants have not paid service tax on due date, therefore, penalty is rightly imposed
-
2008 (3) TMI 144
Availability of credit of manufacturing activity for utilization towards payment of Service Tax on Goods Transport Agency service - GTA Service so received by the appellants would have been covered under definition of “input service” u/r 2(p) CCR, so it shall be deemed to be “output service” - therefore, they were entitled to utilize credit of the tax paid on the input GTA service (availed by them in connection with receipt of inputs into their factory), for payment of tax on such service
-
2008 (3) TMI 143
Demand & penalty - Man Power Recruitment Agency Services - appellant is not a commercial concern but an individual and only providing labour - appellant comes under the scope of Service Tax only w.e.f. 16.6.05 when the “person” has been substituted in stead of commercial concern, therefore, there is no question of late filing of returns prior to this date - issue of late filing of returns for the period prior to this date requires reconsideration, so matter is remanded
-
2008 (3) TMI 142
Commissioner (Appeals) rejected the portion of refund claim of Service Tax paid prior to 1.4.05, as time-barred as the last payment of Service Tax has been made in July 2005 - refund claim was filed on 18.9.06 in respect of the tax paid prior to July 2005 - no merit in assessee’s appeal, the same is dismissed – refund is time barred
-
2008 (3) TMI 137
Appellants are appointed as distributors for the marketing of “spice post paid products” & receive commission for the same - As soon as the authorities informed them about the service tax liability, they immediately took out registration & paid the duty & interest – appellants are not much educate & they were not aware of the provisions of Service Tax laws - original authority has rightly taken a lenient view in terms of sec. 80, and imposed token penalty
-
2008 (3) TMI 136
Enhancement of penalty by commissioner in exercise of the revisional power under Section 84 - Business Auxiliary Service - appellant having been absolved of the tax liability, it could not be saddled with any penalty and therefore, on this ground alone, the impugned order of the Commissioner is fit to be set aside
-
2008 (3) TMI 135
Appellant is a proprietary concern carrying on the business as Direct Sales Agent or a Sourcing Agent through ICICI Bank. They were arranging Vehicle Loan facility to customers of the bank for which they are receiving commission – Lower authority not examined the relied upon decisions by appellant nor examined the applicability of the exemption notifications 14/04 & 25/04 - remand the matter to the Original Authority for examining the issue De novo - appeal is allowed by way of the remand
|
