|
Advanced Search Options
Service Tax - Case Laws
Showing 61 to 80 of 123 Records
-
2010 (7) TMI 330
Respondents are a manufacturer of hand tools and part of the goods manufactured by them are being exported - respondents appointed Overseas Commission Agents who are entrusted with the job of canvassing and procuring orders for the products in overseas market and, thus, helping them in sales of the goods and in following up of the payments from the overseas buyers - proceedings were initialled against the respondents and they were directed to pay the service tax on the overseas commission paid by them in their capacity as recipient of services - Held that: - respondents is not a service provider per se - They are basically the service recipients. They are required to pay the service tax as a deemed service provider - respondents have paid Service tax using TR-6 challans and taken credit treating the said documents as documents covered by Rule 9(1)(e) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 - nothing irregular about it - Appeal is rejected
-
2010 (7) TMI 327
Refund of education cess - disallowed by the Commissioner (Appeals) - contention of appellant is that under the provisions of Notification No. 41/2007-S.T. dated 6-10-2007 there is an exemption from S. Tax on specified taxable service by way of refund - Held that: - There is no notification exempting the education cess by way of Refund under the Finance Act under which the education cess was levied - in absence of Notification granting exemption to the education cess, the same is not admissible - Appeal is dismissed
-
2010 (7) TMI 319
Penalty - appellant availed credit of service tax - on the basis of invoices which were not in the name of their factory - invoice is in the name of head office, credit taken by the factory - Held that: - no allegation of non receipt of input service or the allegation of service not relatable to the factory and also in view of the fact that invoice was in the name of head office of the same factory and not in the name of some one else - appellants are eligible for the credit and suppression of facts and extended period are not invocable, the question of penalty does not arise - penalty imposed is also set aside - appeal filed by the party is allowed
-
2010 (7) TMI 318
Penalty - Goods transport agency - Scrutiny of ST-3 returns filed by the assessee revealed that it had declared nil turn over - SCN issued - proposing to recover service tax for the services under the category GTA rendered by the assessee - submissions of the assessee that it had no mala fide intention and the non-payment of tax had been occasioned due to its bona fide belief that the liability was on its customers - Held that: - authorities have not rendered a sound finding substantiated with any evidence to the effect that the appellants had not paid the tax on account of fraud, suppression of facts, willful misstatement etc., with intention to evade the tax due - appeal is partly allowed by vacating the penalty imposed on the appellant under Section 76 of the Act - Appeal is disposed of
-
2010 (7) TMI 317
Manpower recruitment service - demand of service tax with interest - C.A. submits that as per the provisions of Section 73(3) of Finance Act, 1994, when the assessee has paid the service tax with interest before issue of show cause notice - Held that: - assessee is clearly covered by the provisions of Section 73(3) was of Finance Act, 1994 - applying the provisions of Section 80 of Finance Act, 1994 - the appeal filed by the appellants is allowed by setting aside the penalty under Section 76 of Finance Act, 1994
-
2010 (7) TMI 316
Scientific and technical consultancy service - Penalties have been imposed under Section 76 and Section 77 of Finance Act, 1994 on the ground that there was delay in filing the service tax return as well as in payment of service tax - C.A., appearing on behalf of the appellant submitted that the appellant was a textile engineer and not at all conversant with the law - As soon as he came to know that he was liable to pay service tax for rendering the services, he promptly obtained the registration and paid the service tax before the show cause notice was issued - Held that: - case is squarely covered by the provisions of Section 73(3) which provides that if the assessee pays the service tax with interest further proceedings need not be initiated by issue of show cause notice - Appeal is allowed
-
2010 (7) TMI 315
Penalty - appellants were providing erection, commissioning and installation service and they were having service tax registration - Revenue's case was for imposition of penalty for late filing of returns and delay in payment of service tax - Held that: - contention of the appellant is that they were not well conversant with the procedure and the Service tax is new levy for them - appellant at no stage disputed the tax liability and that they paid the Service Tax and furnished the return belatedly is also not in dispute - penalty is sustainable - reduce the penalty - appeal is allowed
-
2010 (7) TMI 314
Penalty - Proper records were not maintained by the assessee to record input services separately for the exempted and taxable services - Cenvat credit was utilized - assessee agreed to utilise Cenvat credit to a limited extent of 20% as prescribed by Rules - Excess credit taken was paid back to revenue alongwith interest - revenue proceeded with levy of penalty against the assessee - assessee prays for waiver - Held that: - conduct of the assessee is appreciable from the adjudication finding itself - assessee does fee not deserve to be deterrently penalized - penalty is waived and the appellate order set aside
-
2010 (7) TMI 313
Penalty - Appellant is a small tax payer - came forward to discharge its tax liability - there was a delay in defaulting the payment of tax due - Held that: - appellant having discharged the tax liability with interest and also pleading made today that when the liability was discharged with interest, no show cause notice should have been issued - proper to waive the entire penalty levied on the appellant, when the case does not fall under Section 78 of the Finance Act 1994. Consequently, the Appellate Order is set aside
-
2010 (7) TMI 312
Waiver of pre-deposit of service tax along with interest and penalties - contention of the applicant is that the period in this case is from May 2001 to June 2003 - contention of the applicant is that she was doing work of conceptualising and writing the contents for advertising material such as advertising films, radio and print ads which M/s. Ambience Publicis then produced as final advertising material - Held that: - certificate produced by the applicant states that M/s. Ambience Publicis was paying service tax on the value of service which became part of the service rendered by M/s. Ambience Publicis and provided by the applicant - department could not produce any evidence to counter the certificate produced by the applicant. The prime advertising agency has already paid the service tax. Asking the applicant to pay service tax on the advertising materials - applicant has been able to make out a prima facie case in her favour - pre-deposit of service tax and other dues including the penalties are waived - Application allowed
-
2010 (7) TMI 311
Interest and Penalty - service tax paid on GTA service incurred by the appellant on transportation of goods - they had received vegetables by transport agency and they are liable to pay service tax as per benefit of Notification No. 33/2004-S.T - due to closure of the unit during the relevant period when the adjudication process was going on and the first appellate authority decided the matter, they could not produce any documents before the authority to substantiate their claim that the vehicles are used for transport of vegetables - Held that: - In the absence of any documentary evidences before the lower authorities, they could not have come to any conclusion - remand the matter back to the Adjudicating Authority to reconsider the issue afresh
-
2010 (7) TMI 310
Provider of telecommunication service as telegraph authority - no service tax was paid to the treasury - Demand for Service Tax and penalty - authority also found that the appellant was charging service tax from the customers - Appellate authority held that the appellant shall fall under first proviso to Section 4 of Indian Telegraph Act, 1885 and shall be liable to pay service tax - Held that: - no evidence before him to notice that there were less than 300 lines provided by the appellant - appellant's claim that it has provided less than 300 lines was discarded and providing of 500 lines was upheld - appellants claimed that the record for the subsequent period was burnt and no FIR was filed in that respect - appellant failed to explain its matter before the appellate authority - Appeal dismissed
-
2010 (7) TMI 309
Cargo Handling Service - respondent was engaged in providing the services of loading, unloading, packing or unpacking of cargo - According to revenue respondent is liable to pay service tax - Held that: - appellate authority has made a finding that the goods moved within the factory itself for which the respondent cannot be brought under the ambit of "Cargo Handling Service" - Appeal is dismissed
-
2010 (7) TMI 302
CENVAT credit of Service Tax under the provisions of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 - respondent availed CENVAT credit of Service Tax on account of services like for construction, erection, installation and other services like maintenance and repairs used in the Fly Ash Plant situated at Thermal Power Plant which is outside of the factory premises - SCN issued and demand was confirmed - DR submitted that in this case the respondent has availed the services at Thermal Power Plant which is outside the factory premises - Held that: - Rule 2(l) of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004, it is seen that no where it is mentioned that the input service credit is not available for the services utilized outside the factory premises - denial of CENVAT credit on the ground that the services were not received by the respondent in the factory premises, is not sustainable - Appeal is rejected
-
2010 (7) TMI 300
Rectification of mistake - Goods Transport Agency - Service Tax on the Goods Transport Agency from whom he has received the services - case is regarding eligibility of services of goods transport given by goods transporters and transport operators - remanded the matter back for limited purpose of quantification of the duty after granting 75% abatement to the appellant - Held that: - issue of consignment note is mandatory but did not allow the appeal filed by the appellants - no merit in the application filed by the assessee - appeal is dismissed
-
2010 (7) TMI 298
Tour operator services - taxable service under sub-clause (n) of Clause 105 of Section 65 of the Finance Act, 1994 - not paying service tax on the same despite of being registered with Service Tax department - vehicle used by them were issued with the permit as contract carriage under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 - vehicles were covered under 'tourist vehicles' and the respondents were covered as 'tour operator' - Held that: - unless the vehicle of the contract carriage permit holder fulfills the requirement as mentioned in Central Motor Vehicles Rules of a "tourist vehicle", merely because he is holding the contract carriage permit, he does not become liable to tour operator service - dismiss the appeal filed by the Revenue
-
2010 (7) TMI 297
Appellant is a partnership firm - service was introduced for the first time in September 2004 - appellant not be aware of the changes in the law - He submitted that as soon as the department informed them, they contacted the consultants and after taking advice from the consultants, promptly obtained a registration and paid the service tax - he submitted that it cannot be said that appellants had suppressed the fact of providing service from the department attracting extended period for issue of show cause notice and imposition of penalty under Section 78 of Finance Act, 1994 - Held that: - before issue of show cause notice service tax and interest was paid, the benefit of Section 73(3) of Finance Act, 1994 would be available to the appellants and therefore the show cause notice should not have been issued to the appellants - penalties under Section 76 and Section 78 of Finance Act are set aside and the matter is remanded to the original adjudicating authority
-
2010 (7) TMI 294
Appellant entered into an agreement with M/s. Fascal Ltd., Ahmedabad to market their products as distributor - department has taken a view that the service provided by the appellants falls under the category of business auxiliary service - appellant obtained registration as a service tax assessee on 3-9-04 and paid the service tax in October 2004 for the period from July 2003 onwards - SCN issued on 3-3-05 - Held that: - being a new service and that too in the name of business auxiliary service, it is quite possible that appellant was not aware of his liability - as soon as he came to know and even before investigation started he took the registration - appellant has been able to show reasonable cause for failure to obtain the registration and pay service tax - penalty set aside
-
2010 (7) TMI 293
Penalty - Assesses initially paid service tax - by debit in their CENVAT account - objected to by the authorities on the ground that payment can be made only in cash - Subsequently, assessees made the service tax payment in cash - penalty under Section 76 is not attracted against them for the reason that due to payment subsequently of the service tax in cash, it cannot be said that there was any failure to pay tax so as to warrant applicability of Section 76 - set aside penalty under Section 76 and partly allow the appeal
-
2010 (7) TMI 266
Penalty - Appellant challenge the penalty u/s 76 and 78. Held that - penalty u/s 76 was to be set aside as section 76 and 78 are mutually exclusive. Since the assessee had not paid service tax on total turnover during relevant period, assessee was guilty of suppression and penalty u/s 78 had rightly been imposed on it.
|
