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 61 to 80 of 97 Records

• 2008 (3) TMI 131
  

  Security services – appellant submits that he is a sub-contractor & as per the agreement, the main contractor was required to pay the service tax - Since the service tax stands paid already by the main contractor, there was no question of demanding again from the appellant and the question of demand of interest and imposition of penalty also does not arise – commissioner neither considered decision relied upon by the appellants nor considered that main contractor has paid tax – matter remanded

  ---

• 2008 (3) TMI 130
  

  Air Travel Agents - not paid service tax in respect of the tickets booked by them for Hajj pilgrims - appellants had paid the major portion of the service tax before the issue of SCN and the balance amount even before the OIO was issued - it is proper to take a lenient view in the matter and feel that the provisions of Section 80 of the Finance Act could have been issued in this case – penalties u/s 78 are set aside but appellants are liable to pay their interest

  ---

• 2008 (3) TMI 125
  

  Goods Transport Operators Service (GTO service) during the period from 16.11.1997 to 1.6.1998 – demand u/s 73 & penalty for non filing return - held that a person receiving taxable service from GTO/C&F Agent was not covered by provisions of Sec. 70 & 73 - class of persons who come under Section 71A is not brought under the net of Section 73 - SCN issued to the appellants invoking Section 73 are not maintainable

  ---

• 2008 (3) TMI 121
  

  Cable Service - appellant did not discharge the service tax liability in time as their association was pursuing the matter with the Government - This explanation has not been accepted by the lower authorities -. In view of the fact that appellant had already discharged the service tax liability along with interest even before the issue of show cause notice, the imposition of penalties is not warranted

  ---

• 2008 (3) TMI 116
  

  Appellants have availed Cenvat credit on the basis of canteen bill on which service tax has been charged - hold that the appellants cannot be denied the credit of service tax paid on the canteen bills as it has to be considered as input service - set aside the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) of denying input service credit and allow the appeal

  ---

• 2008 (3) TMI 113
  

  Appeal against the revisional order of the Commissioner of Central Excise of enhancing penalty - orders of the Commissioner (Appeals) holding that the appellant is liable to pay service tax having been set aside by the Tribunal holding that the service provided by the appellant is not covered under “Business Auxiliary Service”, penalty could not be imposed on the appellant, and therefore, the impugned order of the Commissioner revising the amount of penalty must be set aside

  ---

• 2008 (3) TMI 111
  

  Credit of tax paid on outward freight - Circular 97/8/2007 clarified that credit of service tax paid on transportation is admissible where ownership of goods remained with seller till delivery of goods – plea whether the appellants has paid excise duty after taking into consideration TV on FOR basis is not considered by lower authorities while denying credit - whether the disputed freight formed part of the AV, is required to be verified – matter remanded

  ---

• 2008 (3) TMI 107
  

  Investigation report did not indicate mens rea or contumacious conduct on the part of the assessee to evade service tax - appellant paid the tax due along with interest before issue of the Show Cause Notice - penalty can be imposed under Section 78 only if a service provider has evaded payment of duty by fraud, wilful suppression, collusion etc. - instant case is a fit one to grant relief provided under Section 80 – assessee’s appeal allowed

  ---

• 2008 (3) TMI 94
  

  Refund claim on the ground that they have paid service tax twice - It was pleaded that the main Stock Broker has already paid the service tax and the assessee being a sub-broker had inadvertently paid the tax assuming that their commission received from the main broker also attracts service tax – refund is admissible, if main stock broker has paid tax, then sub-broker is not liable to pay tax – refund allowed subjected to that incidence of duty has not been passed – matter remanded

  ---

• 2008 (3) TMI 93
  

  Appellant was actually supplying labour to M/s. Hindalco and the scope of their work is limited to the work assigned to them by M/s. Hindalco inside the factory premises - revenue has not produced the contract and shown the relevant provisions to show that the appellants were coming within the ambit of cargo handling service - no evidence to show that the appellant had actually handled the cargo – liability doesn’t arise under Cargo Handling Service – assessee’s appeal allowed

  ---

• 2008 (3) TMI 92
  

  Clerical mistake in two invoices where service tax was charged @ 5% instead of 8% - there is no suppression of value of the service - Commissioner of Service Tax on the ground that there is no willful suppression held that the respondents has sufficient reasonable ground for invoking provisions of Section 80, Hence penalty is not justified - contention of Revenue that reasonable cause means which is beyond the control of assessee has no merit – order of commissioner is justified

  ---

• 2008 (3) TMI 84
  

  Appellant is rendering Commercial Training services; claim to have published certain books/study materials and supplied them to their trainees & outsiders also - if the books are sold to any non-recipient of services of commercial training & coaching services, then it will be only a case of sale of books & question of Service Tax does not arise – exemption u/snot. 12/03 is available subjected to evidence of sale is produced – evidence produced only before tribunal – matter remanded

  ---

• 2008 (3) TMI 83
  

  Cable operator - appellants admitted that they have started MSO operation in December, 2004 - Therefore, inclusion of amount in question is the assessable value received during the year 2004-05 is rightly made - notification 6/05 provides exemption to only those service provider whose turnover is less than Rs. 4 lac - As turn-over of the appellants, for the year in dispute, is more than 4 lac the benefit is rightly denied – penalty is justified because tax was not paid on due date

  ---

• 2008 (3) TMI 82
  

  Appellant, individual providing Man Power Recruitment Agency Services - Amendment w.e.f. 16.6.05, when word “commercial concern” was substituted by “any person”, brought impugned services by an individual under Tax net - in the present case the demand is made from April 2005 to Sept. 2005 - penalty imposed on ground that appellant failed to file returns for period April to Sept. 2005 - issue of late filing of returns for the period prior to 16.6.05 requires reconsideration – matter remanded

  ---

• 2008 (3) TMI 81
  

  Refund of unutilized Credit on input services, in case of Export of Services – refund denied on ground that provision of refund under Export of Services introduced only w.e.f. 14/03/06 - held that any claim filed after 14/03/06, even for earlier period, cannot be turned down if the claim satisfies other requirements - held that substituted Rule 5 will be applicable for the export of services prior to 14/03/06 – refund is subjected to fulfillment of conditions of not. 5/06, so matter remanded

  ---

• 2008 (3) TMI 80
  

  Revenue contended that service of Foreign Based Commission Agent rendered prior to 18.4.06 is taxable under category of “business auxiliary services” which includes commission agent - Revenue relied upon Rule 2(1)(d)(iv) of ST Rules & contended that person receiving taxable service in India is liable for paying Tax - held that the service provided by service provider which has no office in India becomes taxable only w.e.f. 18.4.2006, not for the period prior to it – revenue appeal dismissed

  ---

• 2008 (3) TMI 78
  

  Demand - business auxiliary service - Contention of appellants is that they are working as sub-agent of Shri Rajiv Sanghi who is service provider and has deposited the service tax on the total commission earned by him which includes the amount of commission received by the appellants - Commissioner has confirmed the demand without considering and verifying the assessee’s contention that Shri Rajiv Sanghi has also given a certificate to them - matter is remanded to the adjudicating authority

  ---

• 2008 (3) TMI 77
  

  Commissioner was not justified in setting aside the penalty imposed u/s 76 on ground that tax is paid before issue of SCN – in instant case it is not proved that there was no intention to evade duty - Tribunal in similar case, held that in case of failure to furnish service tax return in time, penalty under Sections 76 and 77 are imposable - appeals are remanded to the Commissioner (Appeals) for afresh decision

  ---

• 2008 (3) TMI 76
  

  Provider of business auxiliary services to foreign supplier, to book order for supply of goods in India – assessee filed a rebate claim u/r 3 of Export of Services Rules, in respect of service tax paid on the ground that the service was delivered outside India, therefore, service is to be treated as export of service – adj. authority or Comm. (A) has not considered the revenue plea that impugned services are provided in India, not outside India, hence rebate is not allowable – case remanded

  ---

• 2008 (3) TMI 73
  

  Exemption under notification no. 12/2003 - Value of goods and material if sold shall be exempted - since the notification did not specify any document, the CA certificate with the purchase bills are valid documents to allow exemption.

  ---

12345