|
Advanced Search Options
Service Tax - Case Laws
Showing 1 to 20 of 95 Records
-
2010 (9) TMI 1193 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... essee was entitled to the benefit of Notification No. 12/2003-S.T., dated 20-6-2003?; (ii) Whether the assessee was entitled to the benefits of various circulars wherein it is held that a sub-contractor is not liable to pay service tax if the main contractor has paid the service tax? The Tribunal to decide the matters afresh, in accordance with law. Both the Central Excise Appeals are disposed of accordingly.
-
2010 (9) TMI 958 - CESTAT BANGALORE
CENVAT credit - Rule 15(3) of CCR, 2004 - various input services - denial on account that services do not fall within definition of input services - denial also on the ground of nexus - demand alongwith interest.
-
2010 (9) TMI 934 - CESTAT BANGALORE
... ...
... ... ..... ment. Had the senior advocate been present today to argue the case, we would have readily heard him and the JCDR for final disposal of the appeals. The advocate on record is not ready to argue. Now that the counsel is not available despite notice that this is a part-heard matter, we would consider the request for adjournment favourably in the interest of the appellant-company, but subject to terms only. The condition for grant of adjournment should, in our considered view, take care of the statutory requirement of pre-deposit under Section 35 F of the Central Excise Act. We, accordingly, grant the prayer for adjournment of hearing, subject to the condition that the appellant shall pre-deposit an amount of Rs. 10,00,00,000/- (Rupees ten crores only) out of the total amount of duty demanded being Rs. 186 crores within a period of ten days. The hearing of the appeal will be held on 28-9-2010 subject to report of compliance. Issue by dasti. (Pronounced and dictated in open Court)
-
2010 (9) TMI 933 - CESTAT NEW DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... ellant we perused the order passed by Tribunal on 17-6-2009 which shows aforesaid result. We make it clear that the Tribunal is not required to simply extend the term of stay order passed earlier but to dispose of the appeal as early as possible when that reaches for consideration. In absence of the appellant on 17-6-2009 appreciating that the demand was for a very small amount and has added to pendency, without extending the stay, Tribunal has disposed of the appeal itself on merit by a reasoned and speaking order allowing relief partly. Finding that the action of the Tribunal to do expeditious justice was the outcome of the order and the order having been passed on merit, no interference is desirable. Accordingly this M.A. (ROM) is dismissed. We also add that a litigant who remains absent to pursue his remedy forgo his right to press for rectification in the guise of a review application, which is not power of the Tribunal to do. (Dictated and pronounced in the Open Court)
-
2010 (9) TMI 932 - CESTAT CHENNAI
... ...
... ... ..... 6-2005 (stay order shows the period in dispute as 10-9-2001 to 16-6-2005) and correct the period covered contained in show cause notice from 10-9-2001 to 31-3-2006 to 10-9-2004 to 31-3-2006. The date of notification No. 19/2005-S.T. is also corrected from 7-1-2005 as appearing in paragraph 2 of the stay order to 7-6-2005. We also find that there is a mistake in our finding that the assessees are not liable to pay service tax for the period from 16-6-2005 and correct the same to read as they are not liable to pay service tax for the period prior to 16-6-2005. The application is disposed of accordingly. (Dictated and pronounced in open Court)
-
2010 (9) TMI 930 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD
... ...
... ... ..... shall be imposable on the assessee for any failure referred to in said provisions, if the assessee proves that there was reasonable cause for the said failure. 6. In this case, the penalty is imposed under Section 78 of the Finance Act which provides for penalty in case service tax has not been paid by reasons of fraud, collusion, willful suppression of facts or contravention of any provisions of the Chapter or the rules. In the present case the appellants are under bona fide belief that they are not providing outdoor catering service which is now strengthened by the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Rajeev Kumar Gupta (supra). The appellants are not challenging the demand and interest. Therefore in view of the above decision of the Tribunal and in view of the provisions of Section 80 of the Finance Act, I find merit in the contention of the appellants. The penalty imposed under Section 78 of the Finance Act is set aside and this appeal is allowed. (Pronounced in Court)
-
2010 (9) TMI 871 - PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT
Commercial concern versus non profit concern - Whether the learned Tribunal is justified in rejecting the appellant’s contention that the appellant is not a ‘commercial concern’ and therefore does not fall within the scope of the definition of the term ‘security agency’ as defined in Section 65(40) of the Finance Act, 1994 - appellant applied for registration under the Act and was issued the registration certificate - appellant neither paid service tax nor filed return - Notice dated 29-7-1999 was issued requiring it to file the return and after correspondence, it was clarified that even if the appellant did not have profit motive and was not ‘commercial concern’, it was liable to pay Service tax - appellant raised contentions that Profit motive was essential before case of an assessee is covered by the service tax and authority could not have invoked the extended period of limitation - Held that:- As per definition of security agency under Section 65(94) service provider should be engaged in the business rendering specified service. There is no warrant for reading therein requirement of profit motive. - Decided against the assessee.
Applicability of limitation law - held that:- Statutes of limitation are thus retrospective in so far as they apply to all legal proceedings brought after their operation for enforcing causes of action accrued earlier, but they are prospective in the sense that they neither have the effect of reviving a right of action which is already barred on the date of their coming into operation nor do they have the effect of extinguishing a right of action subsisting on that date, appeal is dismissed
-
2010 (9) TMI 865 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
CENVAT credit of service tax paid on various input services - payment of duty on final product - upto the place of removal - freight charges, incurred from depot to customer/factory to customers - revenue disallowed the said CENVAT credit on the ground that service tax paid on freight charges incurred from depot to customers/from factory to customer is not covered under the definition of 'input services' for availing CENVAT credit - Held that:- input service has to be interpreted in the light of the requirement of business and it cannot be read restrictively so as to confine only up to the factory or up to the depot of the manufacture. Service extends to the stage of handing over the goods to the customers for whom it is meant and therefore, any service tax paid upto that point, is to be taken into consideration while granting the CENVAT benefit and therefore no illegality in the impugned orders, which calls for interference - decided in favor of assessee.
-
2010 (9) TMI 815 - CESTAT, BANGALORE
Payment of service tax on GTA services through cenvat credit- where a person is neither a provider of taxable service nor does he manufacture any final product, difficulty may arise in cases where input service is received by a person, who by virtue of his business has to pay service tax as a recipient, and who, but for the deeming fiction, would not be able to avail the benefit of Cenvat credit and the tax burden will rest on him, though he was not a consumer. Therefore, the explanation appears to have been enacted with a view to benefit a person who is liable to pay service tax as the recipient of taxable service, so that he can utilize the Cenvat credit for payment of service tax payable by him as recipient of any of the taxable services in respect of which a recipient is held to be liable to pay tax - while expressing our respectful agreement with the view taken in the case of Nahar Exports Ltd. case (2007 -TMI - 83687 - CESTAT, New Delhi), decided in favor of assessee.
-
2010 (9) TMI 804 - CESTAT, BANGALORE
Input services - Pre-deposit and stay of recovery in respect of duty - Cenvat credit - services availed by the appellant are in relation to storage of raw materials/finished goods, certification of quality of goods and processes, communication with Government or other agencies in connection with the business of the company including manufacture and clearance of the finished goods and hence would fall within the ambit of the definition of ‘input service’. The services mentioned above, apparently, fall under one or the other of these categories. application allowed and accordingly there will be waiver of pre-deposit and stay recovery in respect of the amounts of duty
-
2010 (9) TMI 797 - CESTAT, MUMBAI
Technical inspection and certification service - assessee was earlier registered with the revenue as provider of construction service and was paying service tax accordingly - The only contention of the revenue is that prior to 1-7-2003, the appellants were providing consulting engineer service which also includes technical inspection and certification service. - held that:- in view of the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Indian Institution of Quality Assurance (2008 - TMI - 32931 - CESTAT, CHENNAI), no infirmity in the impugned order. - The appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed.
-
2010 (9) TMI 788 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI
Waiver of pre-deposit – Penalty - appellant was engaged in rendering the services falling under the category of Architect services - appellants though had taken registration as service provider failed to file returns and pay the service tax in respect of service charges received by them during the said period - They have subsequently paid the service tax along with interest – Held that:- penalty of Rs. 100/- under section 76 and Rs. 100/- under section 77, leniency invoking the provisions of section 80 of the Finance Act, appellant was small scale service provider, their claim that they were entertaining the bona fide belief that they were not liable to pay service tax in terms of interim order cannot be doubted. the leniency shown by the original authority cannot be held unreasonable. order of the Commissioner enhancing the penalty is set aside and the order of the original authority is restored, Appeal is allowed with consequential relief as per law
-
2010 (9) TMI 666 - CESTAT, CHENNAI
Waiver of pre-deposit - Video production agency service - The appellants, are a leading Film Producer - The appellants have started letting out the open places and certain common constructed vacant areas within the studio premises on hire for shooting films, TV serials, Advertisement films etc - The issue for consideration in this appeal is whether letting out the vacant studio premises attracted service tax under the category of “video production agency”. The authorities have placed reliance on Board’s Circular F.No. B-II/1/2000-TRU dated 9-7-2001 - The clarification issued by the Board does not appear to be in consonance with the definition of video tape production which only includes services such as editing, colouring, dubbing etc. which are specified - The definition of the video tape production in the statute refers to only technical aspects of video tape production service - the authorities have been, prima facie, misguided by said clarification and the subsequent Circular of the Board bearing No. 78/08/04-S.T., dated 23-3-2004 not consider - Prima facie view that the appellants have a very good case on merit in their favour - Hence, waive the requirement of pre-deposit and stay recovery.
-
2010 (9) TMI 665 - CESTAT, CHENNAI
Waiver of pre-deposit - "Cargo Handling Services” - The applicants herein, who are engaged in providing “Cargo Handling Services” are incurring expenditure on account of Terminal Handling Charges, Customs MOT charges, Demurrage Charges, PSA Wharfage and FCA, which are reimbursed by their clients - The applicants are acting as pure agents and, therefore, the costs incurred by them are excludible from the value of the taxable services in terms of Rule 5 of the Service Tax (Determination of Value) Rules, 2006 - In the absence of a written agency contract/agency agreement with the clients is not sufficient for inclusion of the reimbursable expenditure in the value of taxable service - Waive pre-deposit of and stay recovery thereof pending the appeal. Waiver of pre-deposit - Input credit - As regards the balance amount the input service for which tax was paid, was an exempted service, namely, “Handling of Export Cargo Service”, the fact remains that the tax has been paid - The applicants cannot be called upon to pay - Waive pre-deposit together with interest and penalty, and stay recovery .
-
2010 (9) TMI 664 - CESTAT, CHENNAI
Waiver of predeposit - Cenvat credit - Capital goods - The impugned capital goods were purchased by the DGM (Projects) at Salem and the credit in respect of duty paid on such goods was taken at Salem - Cenvat Credit Rules, the requirement is that capital goods should be used for providing out put service and that the same should be received in the premises of the provider of the out put service - Service tax assessee having taken registration at multiple locations can distribute the credit available to it to different locations - BSNL as a whole is a service tax assessee, though its different units have taken service tax registration at different places, prima facie they are eligible to take credit in respect of capital goods received at the secondary switching areas in the jurisdiction of the DGM (Projects), Salem, centrally at one place namely Salem - Hence, the prima facie view that the appellants have a good case on merit - Waive the requirement of predeposit during the pendency of the appeal.
-
2010 (9) TMI 655 - CESTAT, CHENNAI
Waiver of Service Tax - Demand - Business Auxiliary Service - Bench was not required to go into the question as to whether booking the goods amounts to promotion of the business of a particular Airline/Shipping Line - pre-deposit of Rs. 2.5 lakhs within a period of four weeks from today and on such deposit, pre-deposit of the balance amounts in question shall stand waived and recovery thereof stayed pending the appeal - Failure to comply with this direction shall result in vacation of stay and dismissal of appeal without prior notice
-
2010 (9) TMI 654 - CESTAT, BANGALORE
Waiver of pre-deposit - The original show-cause notice invoked the definition of “Franchise” as given under Section 65(47) as amended w.e.f. 16-6-2005 - The original authority held that the transaction did not fall within the ambit of the definition of “franchise” - The revisionary authority, both in its show-cause notice and in its order, chose to press into service the erstwhile definition of “franchise” under Section 65(47), which was in force prior to 16-6-2005 - Show-cause notice issued by the revisionary authority under Section 84 is not permitted to travel beyond the scope of the original show-cause notice issued to the assessee - Agreement is that the Institute could not utilize the name or logo of Client or even of the Joint Venture in any materials, advertisements, hoardings, name boards or letter heads, without prior and written approval from Client - The Institute should be considered to have obtained a representational right from Client to provide training/coaching to the candidates - Hence, grant waiver of pre-deposit and stay of recovery.
-
2010 (9) TMI 653 - CESTAT, CHENNAI
Waive pre-deposit - Support services of business or Commerce or Business Auxiliary Services - strong prima facie case for waiver in the light of the Tribunal’s decision in the case of Fifth Avenue v. Commissioner of Service Tax, Chennai (2009 -TMI - 34611 - CESTAT, CHENNAI), where the services rendered by the assessees were in the form of evaluation of prospective customers, processing of purchase orders, customer management, processing of transactions, information and tracking of delivery schedules, operational assistance for marketing, formulation of customer service and pricing policies, managing distribution and logistics, which were held by the Tribunal to be support services of business or commerce and not covered as BAS - Held that: waive pre-deposit of amounts by accepting, prima facie, that the applicants provided support services of business or commerce which came into the statute only with effect from 1-5-2006 and stay recovery
-
2010 (9) TMI 645 - CESTAT, BANGALORE
Appeal to Appellate Tribunal - Condonation of delay of three days in filing the appeal - As some electrical work was going on in the concerned section, regular work was interrupted and records got shifted from one place to another. Thus this marginal delay had occurred - The office of the Commissioner (Appeals) who passed the impugned order and the office of the appellant-Commissioner are situated on the same floor of the building -Therefore, the submission that the respondents had received a copy of the order, after a period of 110 days of passing of the same appeared to be factually incorrect - Find no reason to suspect the averments made in the COD application - That instead of the officer authorized to file the appeal, the appellant-Commissioner himself has signed the COD application does not appear relevant to the application - The marginal delay in filing the appeal is condoned - COD application is allowed.
-
2010 (9) TMI 644 - CESTAT, BANGALORE
Waiver of pre-deposit - Revisionary orders - The learned DR has not cited any notification issued under Section 4 or 5 of the Customs Act, 1962, to enable the Commissioner of Central Excise and Customs, Trivandrum to exercise revisionary jurisdiction in respect of a matter which falls within the jurisdiction of the Commissioner of Central Excise and Customs, Cochin - It is customary for the Commissioners of Central Excise to issue show-cause notices before passing revisionary orders under Section 84 of the Act -Commissioner, however, did not issue any such notice to the appellant - Further note that the very complexion of the penalty imposed on the assessee was changed by the Commissioner when he substituted ‘Section 76’ for ‘Section 78’ and without notice to the party - Hence, The stay application (1/2005) stands allowed . Other application filed by the appellant cannot be allowed - This is also a stay application, but stay is prayed for against certain ongoing proceedings in relation to a batch of show-cause notices which were issued subsequently to the assessee - This application is, therefore, dismissed.
|
