Home Case Index All Cases Service Tax 2010 2010 2010 (7) Service Tax - 2010 (7) 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 121 to 123 of 123 Records

• 2010 (7) TMI 96
  

  Management, Maintenance or Repair Service-Suppression of fcats- the show-cause notice was issued to the appellant for undervaluation of the taxable service and short payment of Service Tax. There is no allegation against the appellant for late payment of Service Tax or there was any intention to evade Service Tax by the appellants. Held that- there is no suppression of facts thus no penalty can be levied but demand confirm.

  ---

• 2010 (7) TMI 93
  

  Penalty- The assessees are manpower recruitment supply. Held that- set aside the penalty in the light of the provisions of section 80 but uphold the penalty under section 77 of the Act.

  ---

• 2010 (7) TMI 92
  

  Cenvat Credit- The Assistant Commissioner rejected the refund claim on the ground that the assessee was not registered with the Department as a provider of service. Also, the refund claim was barred by limitation. Commissioner (Appeals) sustained the order of the Original Authority. Held that- A person not registered with the department cannot obtain refund under Rule 5 of CCR. I find that the BSNL case cited by the appellant did not deal with the requirement of registration to qualify for credit. Thus, the appeal is rejected.

  ---

1 ....34567