Home Case Index All Cases Service Tax 2011 2011 2011 (7) Service Tax - 2011 (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 41 to 60 of 132 Records

• 2011 (7) TMI 842
  

  Cenvat credit - outward transportation - Hon'ble High Court has held that outward transportation of finished goods from the place of removal is covered by the definition of "input service" upto 31.3.2008 and service tax paid thereon is eligible as CENVAT credit, upholding the Larger Bench decision in ABB Ltd. v. CCE & ST [2011 -TMI - 203985 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT] - Decided in favor of the assessee

  ---

• 2011 (7) TMI 839
  

  Demand - Application for stay - Rule 2(l) of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 - Gujarat High Courts have placed a construction on the provisions of Rule 2(l) of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 as they stood before 1 April 2008 which supports the case of the assessee - The issue before the Gujarat High Court was also whether CENVAT credit on service tax paid on services rendered by a Goods Transport Agency on outward transportation of the goods beyond the place of removal was admissible under Rule 2(l). The question of law has been answered in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue

  ---

• 2011 (7) TMI 838
  

  Whether the recipient of service provided by the foreign service provider is liable to pay service prior to 18.04.06 - This issue is now settled by the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case Indian National Shipowners Association v. Union of India [2008 -TMI - 32013 - HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY] held that the service receipt is not liable for service tax prior to 18/4/2006 in respect of the service received from Foreign Service Provider - Appeal is allowed

  ---

• 2011 (7) TMI 832
  

  Demand - Consultancy Engineer Services - Karnataka High Court in the case of CST Bangalore Vs Toyoda Iron Works Co Ltd (2010 -TMI - 77723 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT) and CST Bangalore Vs Turbotech Precision engineering Pvt Ltd (2010 -TMI - 77320 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT), after taking into consideration the amendment made vide Finance Act 2006, held in two decisions that prior to 1.5.06, limited companies were not under the scope of Consulting Engineer Service - Appeal is allowed

  ---

• 2011 (7) TMI 831
  

  Demand - Whether hiring of ambulance does not fall under the ambit of Service Tax as ‘Rent-a-Cab’ service - Held that: Commissioner (Appeals) relied upon the Board’s Circular No. 334/1/2007-TRU, dated 28-2-2007 where it has been specifically clarified that ambulances are not meant for carrying passengers on hire and hence question of levy does not arise - Decided in favor of the assessee

  ---

• 2011 (7) TMI 827
  

  Refund - Clearing and Forwarding service - consignment stockiest for selling resins - As per the terms of the agreement the Appellant agrees to arrange at his own cost suitable godowns for warehousing the products and also to arrange insurance of the goods in the joint name with the principal - Appellants are entitled for annual commission on the volume of sales - Appeal is dismissed

  ---

• 2011 (7) TMI 826
  

  Waiver of pre-deposit - Business Auxiliary Service - applicants are not paying Service Tax on the amount of Rs. 30/- PMT received from the BALCO on the belief that some part of the activity undertaken by the applicants are not taxable - The contention of the applicants is that the contract is for crushing coal and this activity is not covered under the scope of Business Auxiliary Service during the period in dispute i.e. Sept. 2004 to June 2005 - Full stay granted.

  ---

• 2011 (7) TMI 820
  

  Waiver of pre-deposit - Taxation of Service (Provided from Outside India and Received in India) Rules, 2006 - Rule 3(ii) - Held that: there is no evidence on record that the service has been partly performed in India - Decided in favor of the assessee

  ---

• 2011 (7) TMI 819
  

  Waiver of pre-deposit - business auxiliary service - Held that: as applicants are only undertaking processing of goods which is not covered under the scope of ‘business auxiliary service’ during the period in dispute - Decided in favor of the assessee

  ---

• 2011 (7) TMI 812
  

  Import of servcies - Rule 3(iii) - As per this rule the criteria is that if such services are received by a recipient located in India for use in relation to business, then it shall be considered as a taxable services provided from outside India and received in India and shall be subjected to Service Tax as per Section 66A of the Finance Act, 1994 - The said services were received by a recipient located in India for use in relation to business or commerce and thus satisfy criteria of Rule 3(iii) - prima facie the duty demanded from the applicant is payable.

  ---

• 2011 (7) TMI 803
  

  Waiver of pre-deposit - clearing and forwarding agency - in cases where the goods are already cleared by the manufacturer and the dealer is to store those goods and forward to the buyer of the goods as per direction of the manufacturer, such service does not fall under the clearing and forwarding service. - As per the terms and conditions of agreements appellants also show that applicant are undertaking activity of clearing the goods - Decided in favor of the assessee

  ---

• 2011 (7) TMI 802
  

  Demand - Management Consultancy Service - the services rendered by ESI, PF, and other industrial law practitioners are in the nature of providing secretarial assistance in filling up of various returns and forms, maintenance of records, which do not involve any change or improvement in the existing system of management organisations and do not get covered by scope of the term ‘Management Consultant’ - Decided in favor of the assessee

  ---

• 2011 (7) TMI 784
  

  Demand - Real Estate Agent - Held that: in the matter of administration charges and restoration charges and these do not appear to be liable to tax under the entry for services of a Real Estate Agent - Decided in favor of the assessee by way of direction to deposit Rs. 10 lakhs and the balance is waived

  ---

• 2011 (7) TMI 780
  

  Whether transaction charges collected by the stock brokers which are to be paid to the National Stock Exchange are not to be included to the brokerage charges for the purpose of levy of service tax - Held that: this issue is already settled by the Tribunal in the case of Steel City Securities Ltd Vs CCE, Hyderabad (2008 -TMI - 33122 - CESTAT BANGLORE) Decided in favor of the assessee

  ---

• 2011 (7) TMI 771
  

  Stay - Cenvat credit - Event Management Services - Rule 14 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 - High Court in the case of CCE, Nagpur v. Manikgarh Cement (2010 -TMI - 78189 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT) has held that services of repair and maintenance and civil construction used in the residential colony of the respondent may be welfare activities but such welfare activities have no nexus with the business of the assessee to qualify as “input services” - stay granted partly.

  ---

• 2011 (7) TMI 770
  

  Demand - High Court, Kerala in the case of Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise v. Krishna Poduval (2005 -TMI - 75949 - Kerala High Court) wherein it was HELD THAT the incidents of imposition of penalty are distinct and separate and even if the offences are committed in the course of same transaction or arises out of the same act, the penalty is imposable for ingredients of both the offences - As argued by the appellant the duty, interest and 25% of the penalty were paid by them on their own - Decided in favor of the assessee

  ---

• 2011 (7) TMI 748
  

  Notification No. 41/2007-ST dated 06.10.2007 - Refund - Time limitation - held that:- refund claim beyond prescribed period of limitation not allowable.

  Regarding refund of service tax paid on CHA service and technical testing service - held that:- there cannot be two different yard sticks for charging the service tax and allowing the benefits. - Refund allowed.

  ---

• 2011 (7) TMI 741
  

  Waiver of pre-deposit - on the ground that the appellant is not eligible for availing abatement of 75% of the value of the freight charges, as they have not given the declaration on the consignment notes as required by law - It is undisputed in these four cases the question is of eligibility to 75% abatement of the freight charges by the goods transport agency a service provider - Held that: even Board Circular No. 37B also indicates that the procedure prescribed in the Board Circular, is that a declaration by the service provider, in all such cases, on the consignment note, to the effect that the conditions of the aforesaid exemption notification have been satisfied, would be sufficient for availing of the benefit under the said notifications - Decided in favor of the assessee

  ---

• 2011 (7) TMI 740
  

  Demand - Maintenance and Repair Services - assessee filed an appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) and submitted before the said authority that they had discharged the service tax liability and interest thereon much before the issue of the show-cause notice and had also filed the service tax return for the relevant period before the issuance of the notice - if the assessee has discharged the service tax liability on his own ascertainment or on the basis of ascertainment by the Central Excise officers and inform the Central Excise officer of payment of such service tax then, no notice under sub-section (1) in respect of the amount so paid shall be served - Decided in favor of the assessee

  ---

• 2011 (7) TMI 739
  

  Demand - GTA services - Validity of show cause notice - Section 71A, the provision under which recipients of GTO service, like the present assessees, were to filed returns for purposes of assessment under Section 71, was not a part of Section 73 of the Act prior to 10.9.2004 - prior to 10.9.2004, the respondents are not liable to file return under Sec.70 or Sec.71A - Tribunal in the case of Pandurang SSK Ltd & ors vide order [2011 -TMI - 207348 - CESTAT, MUMBAI] held that the show-cause notices/corrigenda to show-cause notices issued prior to 10.9.2004 are not in accordance with law

  ---

1234567