|
Advanced Search Options
Service Tax - Case Laws
Showing 1 to 20 of 123 Records
-
2010 (7) TMI 1107 - CESTAT KOLKATA
... ...
... ... ..... y clear that the petitioners shall be liable to pay interest in accordance with law for the delayed compliance of the statute from the date it became applicable. It is made clear that the benefit of the order shall not be available to the non-petitioners. Save as aforesaid, all interim orders are vacated and the petition is dismissed. 4. From the Hon’ble High Courts Order, it is clear that the penal action against them has been waived subject to the condition that the appellants complied with the provisions of the statute within a period of 60 days. However, it has been specifically made clear in the aforesaid order that the appellants shall be liable to pay interest in accordance with law. Hence, I am of the view that the appeal has no merit as regards the demand of interest is concerned. Further, the payment of interest is a civil liability and not a penalty. 5. The appeal is dismissed. Stay petition also gets disposed off. (Dictated and pronounced in the open Court)
-
2010 (7) TMI 1066 - CESTAT BANGALORE
... ...
... ... ..... , we find that the issue involved in this case is identical to the issue in the Stay Order passed by us vide stay order No. 12/2010 dated 21.12.2009. It is also seen that in an identical issue, the Coordinate bench in the case of Karamjit Singh & Co Vs. CCE, Raipur 2009 (15) STR 266(Tri.-Del.), has granted stay. Since this bench has taken a view that the value of the free supplies of explosives and the fuel cannot be included in the value of the taxable services, respectfully following the same, we find that the applicant has made out a prima facie case for the waiver of pre-deposit of the amounts involved. The application for waiver of the pre-deposit of the amounts involved is allowed and recovery thereof stayed till the disposal of the appeal. Since the issue involved in this appeal is identical to the issue involved in appeal No. ST/418/2009, Registry is directed to link this appeal along with that appeal and list for disposal. (Pronounced and dictated in open Court)
-
2010 (7) TMI 1010 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... he fact that the examination is scheduled to be held on 15.07.2010, interim relief is granted in terms of Paragraph No.6-(C) of each of the petitions, till the final disposal of the petitions. The judgment is reserved. Registry to place a copy of this order in connected matters.
-
2010 (7) TMI 994 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... . As can be seen from the impugned order of the Tribunal, the Tribunal has recorded that the respondent had already paid full duty and interest and accordingly held that the penalty under Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944 shall be 25 of the duty if paid within 30 days of communication of the order and will be 100 of duty if paid thereafter. It is an accepted position that the controversy involved in the present appeal stands concluded by a decision of this High Court in the case of Commissioner of Central Excise and Customs, Surat-II v. Mahalaxmi Industry, 2010 (2) G.L.H. 116. The decision of the Tribunal being in consonance with the principles enunciated in the said decision, it is not possible to state that there is any legal infirmity in the impugned order of the Tribunal so as to warrant interference. 4. In the circumstances, in absence of any question of law, as proposed or otherwise, much less a substantial question of law, the appeal is dismissed.
-
2010 (7) TMI 830 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD
Rent-a-cab service - service tax not paid, even though the same has been collected - case of appellant is that when a vehicle is given to a client for a certain period of time for some consideration or for going from one place to another and charge is made on per KM basis or lump sum amount based on distance, such service cannot be held liable to service tax and is not covered by rent-a-cab service - Held that: - no evidence has been brought out by the Revenue to show that vehicle was rented out for a specified period of time to a customer and the charges were not being collected on the basis of per KM/per hour or lump sum for distance travelled etc. - When the charges are revealed on the basis of per KM or lump sum for distance or per hour basis, it cannot be said to be covered by a rent-a-cab service.
Another factor that is to be taken note of is that in this case there is no written agreement with any customer. Normally whenever vehicles are rented out for a specified period there would be a written contract specifying the conditions. The absence of such a contract also supports the case of the appellants.
The appellants are not liable to pay service tax. However since having already collected the service tax, whatever has been collected is required to be deposited as per law with interest - there is violation of provisions of FA, 1994 rendering them liable to penalty u/s 77 of FA, 1994 - appeal allowed - decided partly in favor of appellant.
-
2010 (7) TMI 774 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Demand of service tax and penalty - Air Travel Agent’ service - SCN, alleging that the petitioner-assessee had short-paid service tax - petitioner-assessee had paid service tax voluntarily before the issuance of show cause notice - Benefit of proviso to Section 78 - person, liable to pay such service tax or erroneous refund, as determined under sub-section (2) of section 73, shall also be liable to pay a penalty, in addition to such service tax and interest thereon, if any, payable by him, which shall not be less than, but which shall not exceed twice, the amount of service tax so not levied or paid or short-levied or short-paid or erroneously refunded - Provided that where such service tax as determined under sub-section (2) of section 73, and the interest, payable thereon under section 75, is paid within thirty days from the date of communication of order of the Central Excise Office determining such service tax, the amount of penalty liable to be paid by such person under this section shall be twenty-five per cent of the service tax so determined, assessee claims to have paid service tax much prior to the determination of its tax liability under sub-section (2) of Section 73 - Matter remanded to Adjudicating Authority and directed to consider the question whether or not the petitioner-assessee has discharged its tax liability in terms of the first proviso to Section 78 of the Act. On proper and correct quantification of tax liability under the Act with relevant dates of payments, if the Adjudicating Authority comes to the conclusion that the petitioner-assessee is entitled to the benefit of the first proviso to Section 78, the Adjudicating Authority shall grant the benefit to the petitioner-assessee while quantifying its tax liability, appeal is dismissed
-
2010 (7) TMI 750 - CESTAT, AHMEDABAD
Security services - Penalty - appellant does not dispute confirmation of service tax but submits that it is not a case of invoking penal provisions against them inasmuch as there was a lot of confusion in the case as regards service tax and the appellants were under a bona fide belief that no service tax is required to be paid by them - Held that:- nothing on record to show that the tax was not paid by the assessee on account of any mala fidies on their part, in which case the benefit of provisions to section 80 of the Finance Act, 1994 is required to be extended to them, demand of service tax confirmed against the appellant, penalties imposed upon them under various sections of the Finance Act set aside, appeal is allowed
-
2010 (7) TMI 745 - CESTAT, MUMBAI
Delay in payment of tax - appellants submits that failure to pay service tax and to follow other statutory formalities by the appellants had been occasioned by reasons beyond his control. He had to visit his native place in Uttar Pradesh frequently during the material period for treatment of his father, who was ailing and eventually expired on 4.12.2007. The relevant death certificate is on record. He submits that there was no intention on the part of the assessee to evade the impugned tax – Held that:- appellants already paid the service tax and the interest found due from them before issuance of the show-cause notice, allegation of intention to evade service tax is absent in this case, penalties imposed under Sections 78 and 77 of the Act may not be sustainable. However, the penalty imposed under Section 76 is on a different footing. The same is imposed for delay in payment of tax during the material period. Section 76 provides for imposing penalty ranging from Rs. 100 to Rs. 200/- per day. In the facts of the case, the maximum penalty provided under this Section is apparently not imposable, there shall be waiver of pre-deposit and stay of recovery of the balance dues adjudged against the appellants pending decision in the appeal.
-
2010 (7) TMI 744 - CESTAT, KOLKATA
Stay application - demand of service tax against the appellants but did not impose any penalty by invoking Section 80 of the Finance Act, 1994 - Held that:- contract between the appellants and ONGC, appellant is undertaking services and for rendering such services, they are using mobile units "workover rigs". The nature of activities, prima facie, support the view of the Commissioner that the same are in the nature of management, maintenance and repairing services. We also, prima facie, agree with the submission of the ld. Jt. CDR that the Tribunal in the earlier order has not upheld the view of the Commissioner's earlier findings that the dispute involving legal interpretation and that the belief of the appellants is bona fide, it is not a case for full waiver of dues as per the impugned order. - Pre-deposit ordered partly.
-
2010 (7) TMI 741 - CESTAT, CHENNAI
Penalty - lower appellate authority has upheld the penalties imposed under Section 77 and Section 78 of the Finance Act, 1994, but has set aside the penalty under Section 76 of the Finance Act, 1994, one of the penalties imposed under Section 76 or under Section 78, is sufficient keeping in view the subsequent amendment to the law making these penalties mutually exclusive, the department's appeal is rejected.
-
2010 (7) TMI 739 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI
Levy of service tax - levy under the category of business auxiliary service - goods were not dealt by the present appellants. But they get consideration for service provided to boost the sales of the aforesaid principal who compensated the appellant by way of commission. - Held that:- demand are very small in nature and there is a difference in judgement by the revenue, pre-deposit of 20 per cent of the service tax demanded, predeposit of balance demand shall be waived till the disposal of appeal
-
2010 (7) TMI 737 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Constitutional validity of section 65(30a) read with section 65(105)(zzq) and section 65(105)(zzzh) read with section 66 of the Finance Act, 1994, as amended by the Finance Act, 2010 - construction services - builders - no coercive steps shall be taken against the Petitioners for the recovery of service tax in relation to the provision in question, but it is clarified that assessments may proceed in accordance with law
-
2010 (7) TMI 736 - CESTAT, CHENNAI
Whether catering service can be considered as an input service for manufacture of finished goods - Held that:- service tax credit in respect of catering service is not admissible in respect of manufactured goods, order set aside by confirming the demand of service tax and interest while setting aside the penalty imposed. The department's appeal is partly allowed.
-
2010 (7) TMI 727 - CESTAT, AHMEDABAD
Refund in terms of notification No. 41/2007-ST - Such refund claim is required to be claimed within a period of six months from the end of the quarter, during which the exports have been made - appellant filed refund claim after the expiry of six months, as a condition of notification, the same stands rejected by the lower authorities as time-barred - Held that:- When a notification itself provides the period for claiming the exemption in terms of the said notification, such period cannot be extended by taking recourse to the provisions of section 11B, inasmuch as, rightly observed by Commissioner (Appeals), it is not a simple case of refund of excess duty paid but is a refund arising out of an exemption notification, which provides a specific mode and procedure for claiming of refund of duty paid on the various services availed by an assessee, order upheld and appeal rejected.
-
2010 (7) TMI 724 - CESTAT, CHENNAI
Service Tax on 'free after sale service' - held that:- this issue stands settled by the decision of the Tribunal in ASL Motors Pvt. Ltd. Vs Commissioner of Central Excise & Service Tax, Patna [2007 -TMI - 3419 - CESTAT, KOLKATA] which has been followed in the case of Pillai & Sons Motor Co. Vs Commissioner of Central Excise, Trichy [2009 -TMI - 33829 - CESTAT CHENNAI]. - Decided in favor of assessee.
-
2010 (7) TMI 710 - CESTAT, AHMEDABAD
Rule 5 of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 - lower authorities have rejected the refund claims filed by the appellant in terms of Rule 5 of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 during the period June 2007 to March 2008 - following the decision in Malbro Stone Exports [2007 -TMI - 2233 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI] which referred that even if the exports were exempted, the input stage service credit has to be granted - Held that set aside the impugned order and remand the matter to Commissioner (Appeals) for de novo decision after appreciating the declaration of law - Appeal allowed by way of remand
-
2010 (7) TMI 702 - CESTAT, KOLKATA
Waiver of predeposit - The demand is confirmed after denying benefit of Notification 32/04-ST dated 3-12-2004 on the ground that the abatement of 75 per cent on the total freight charges in respect of the service provided by a goods transport agency to a customer in relation to the transportation of the goods by road subject to the condition that the provider of service gave a declaration that no credit of duty paid on inputs or capital goods used for providing taxable service has been taken aid or the goods transport agency has not availed the benefit of Notification 12/2003-ST dated 20-6-2003 - The revenue submitted that during verification, the appellants failed to produce necessary consignment notes having necessary declaration, hence, the demand is rightly made - Thus, it is not a case for total waiver of demand of service tax -
-
2010 (7) TMI 697 - CESTAT, BANGALORE
Demand - Cenvat credit - ‘Rent-a-Cab’ service - Held that: in the submission made by the Counsel for the appellants that the impugned activity came within the definition of ‘input service’ as per Rule 2(l)(ii), as “activities relating to business - Decided in favor of the assessee
-
2010 (7) TMI 695 - CESTAT, CHENNAI
Demand, interest and penalty - Tax demand arises as a result of holding that the assessees were availing goods transport services - The plea that the service was not rendered by the Goods Transport Agency but by individual truck owners and truck operators is raised in the appeal for the first time and hence requires verification - Therefore, set aside the impugned order and remand the case to the adjudicating authority to verify the contention of the assessees that services were provided to them by individual vehicle owners and operators - The appeal is thus allowed by way of remand.
-
2010 (7) TMI 690 - CESTAT, MUMBAI
Demand - Application for stay - whether the Noticee is eligible to avail Cenvat credit on the supplementary invoices issued by the service providers to him - On being pointed about non-payment of service tax the service providers discharged the tax liability and raised supplementary invoices on the Noticee - Once the assessee is entitled to take credit in relation to the duty paid on the inputs or capital goods and this right being not in dispute, merely because there is some infirmity observed in the document on which the credit sought to be availed, that cannot be a justification for denying the credit - Decided in favor of the assessee
........
|
