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 61 to 80 of 132 Records

• 2011 (7) TMI 723
  

  Notification No.41/2007-ST dated 06/10/2007 - Vide Section 35D (3) of the Central Excise Act, 1944, cases where determination of any question having a relation to the rate of duty of excise or to the value of goods for purposes of assessment is in issue or is one of the points in issue, are excluded from the scope of Single Member Bench and the same has to be considered by a Division Bench of this Tribunal - Matter is placed before the divisional bench

  ---

• 2011 (7) TMI 714
  

  CENVAT credit - GTA services - rule 2(l) of CENVAT credit Rules, 2004 - Tribunal in the case of ABB Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Bangalore (2009 -TMI - 34139 - CESTAT, BANGALORE) has held that the services availed by a manufacturer for outward transportation of final products from the place of removal shall be treated as input services in terms of Rule 2(l)(ii) of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 - Appeal is dismissed

  ---

• 2011 (7) TMI 699
  

  Demand - assessee contested that they have taken service tax registration at Mumbai as their registered office is situated in Mumbai and service has been rendered in Mumbai and, therefore, the Assistant Commissioner at Ratnagiri does not have jurisdiction to issue notice and recover service tax - renting of immovable property - Tribunal in the Ores India (P) Ltd., case (2008 -TMI - 31594 - CESTAT KOLKATA) has clearly held that as per Rule 3 of Service Tax Rules, 1994 read with Board's order No.1/94 dated 29/06/94, it is the Commissioner in whose territorial jurisdiction, the registered office of the service provider is located, has the jurisdiction over him irrespective of the place where service is provided - Decided in favor of the assessee

  ---

• 2011 (7) TMI 692
  

  Demand - Clearing and Forwarding Agency Services - The issue is that during the impugned period whether the service tax can be demanded from the service recipient through show-cause notice issued in this case - in these cases the show-cause notices issued on 31.07.2001 and 16.08.2002 are not sustainable - Decided in favor of the assessee

  ---

• 2011 (7) TMI 684
  

  Demand - Consultancy Engineering Services - Notification No. 1/99 dated 28.02.1999 - whether during the impugned period i.e. 1999 to 2002, the appellant is liable to pay service tax on the services rendered outside India or not - Supreme Court in the case of Union of India v. Indian National Ship Owners Association - (2009 (12) TMI 850 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA) wherein it has been held that all the services rendered outside prior to 18.04.2006 service tax is not payable - Decided in favor of the assessee

  ---

• 2011 (7) TMI 679
  

  Demand - GTA services - Notification No. 5/99 dated 28.02.99 - Held that: in this case a show-cause notice has been issued on 12.11.2002 for the period 16.11.1997 to 01.06.98. In case of Laghu Udyog Bharati v. Union of India (1999 -TMI - 18 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA) the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that Rule 2(1)(d)(xvii) making the customer of the goods transport operator as responsible for collecting the service tax was ultra vires the Act - Decided in favor of the assessee

  ---

• 2011 (7) TMI 648
  

  Deposit of duty pending appeals - non compliance of 35F appeal dismissed - Held that:- Appellant has paid the service tax demand as directed by the Commissioner (Appeals), though belated. We remand the matter back to the Commissioner (Appeals) to pass an order on merit after giving reasonable opportunity to the appellant to present their case without insisting any further pre-deposit.

  ---

• 2011 (7) TMI 647
  

  Power of Commissioner appeals - Held That:- With effect from 11.05.2001 the Commissioner (Appeals) has no power to remand the matter back to the original adjudicating authority who has to himself examine the issue and pass a speaking order on merit.

  ---

• 2011 (7) TMI 632
  

  Credits utilization to the extent of 20% in respect of credit taken on capital goods - Held that:- Issue in respect of 20% of utilization of credit in case of assessee who is providing taxable as well as exempted services in now settled by Tribunal in the case of Idea Cellular(2009 (2) TMI 91 (Tri)) and in the case of BSNL (2008 (8) TMI 184 (Tri)) and Tribunal held that the credit utilization restriction of 20% is not applicable in respect of credit availed on capital goods. Remand the matter back to adjudicating authority to look into this issue afresh.

  Non production of original documents - demand confirmed - Held that:- As before the adjudicating authority appellant produced photocopies of the documents and now the applicant has produced the original also in view of this the applicant pleads remand in this regard.

  Suppression of value of taxable service - demand confirmed - Held that:- As found in audit report there is mention in respect of non-taxable services and not of taxable service hence, order is set aside. Matter is remanded to the adjudicating authority, Appeal is disposed by way of remand.

  ---

• 2011 (7) TMI 631
  

  Recipient of service provided by the foreign service provider - whether liability to pay service prior to 18.04.06 arises? - Held that:- Service receipt is not liable for service tax prior to 18/4/2006 in respect of the service received from Foreign Service Provider as decided in Iandian National Shipowners Association vs. Union of India (2010 (12) TMI 12 (SC)) - in favour of assessee

  ---

• 2011 (7) TMI 620
  

  Input service credit on GTA service for outward transportation of the goods - period involved from 01.10.2005 to 18.4.2006 and 19.4.2006 to 30.9.2006 - Held that:- Prior to 1.3.2008, the assessee can avail cenvat credit towards payment of service tax on GTA service. Therefore, period in the appeals is prior to 1.3.2008. Hence, the assessee is entitled to avail cenvat credit towards payment of service tax on GTA service. See CCE vs Auro Spinning Mills (2008 - TMI - 31486 - CESTAT NEW DELHI) - Decided in favor of assessee.

  ---

• 2011 (7) TMI 617
  

  Input service credit on GTA service for outward transportation of the goods - Revenue denied credit on ground that charges of GTA service are not included in the assessable value of the final products as the place of removal is factory gate - Held that:- Since service charges incurred in this case on GTA service has not formed part of the assessable value. The appellants are not entitled to input service credit on the said service. See CCE, Nagpur vs. Ultratech Cement Ltd (2010 (10) TMI 13 (HC)) - Decided in favor of Revenue.

  ---

• 2011 (7) TMI 616
  

  Input service credit on GTA service for outward transportation of the goods - Revenue denied credit on ground that sale is taken place at the factory gate - Held that:- High Court in the case of ABB Ltd (2011 (3) TMI 248 (HC)) held that prior to 1.4.2008 wherein an amendment has taken place relating to 'place of removal' by inserting the word 'upto' in place of word 'from' in clause (ii) of Rule 2(1), if the manufacturer has availed the GTA service and paid service charges, the appellants are entitled to input service credit. In this case, it is not in dispute that the appellants borne the GTA service charges, therefore, appellants are entitled to input service credit on GTA service - Decided in favor of assessee.

  ---

• 2011 (7) TMI 615
  

  Input service credit on GTA service for outward transportation of the goods - Revenue denied credit on ground that such service is not covered under the definition of input service as per Rule 2(l) of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 - Held that:- This issue has been settled by High Court in the case of ABB Ltd (2011 (3) TMI 248 (HC)) wherein it has been held that the input service credit on outward transportation of the goods is available as the same has formed part of the assessable value. Therefore, appellants are entitled to input service credit on GTA service - Decided in favor of assessee.

  ---

• 2011 (7) TMI 613
  

  GTA service - input service credit on GTA service availed by the appellants for outward transportation of finished goods upto port - Revenue contended that input service credit is entitled to the appellants if the assessee has availed services in the course of their business of manufacturing as well as post manufacture, the service has formed part of the assessable value of the goods cleared by them - Held that:- In the case of ABB Ltd (2011 - TMI - 203985 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT)it has been held that the assessee is entitled to avail input service credit on outward transportation of the goods as in this case there is no dispute that the post manufacture has not formed the part of the assessable value. It is also not disputed this has not been availed by the appellants in the course of business manufacturing. Therefore, the appellants are entitled to avail input service credit on GTA service - Decided in favor of assessee

  ---

• 2011 (7) TMI 610
  

  Waiver of penalties u/s 78 of the Finance Act 1994 - Held that:- Demand has been set aside by Tribunal by the decision cited wherein the respondent's undertake not to take refund of the amount deposited by them and the Tribunal has held that the whole demand is admitted by respondents, therefore, the penalty u/s 78 is not leviable on the respondents following the decision of respondents own case against the impugned order. Appeal of Revenue dismissed.

  ---

• 2011 (7) TMI 602
  

  GTA - credit on outward transport agency service - Held that:- Assessee is entitled to input service credit on Goods Transport Agency service, if the said service has formed the part of assessable value. See CCE Vs. M/s A.B.B. Ltd.(2011 (3) TMI 248 (HC)) - Decided in favor of assessee.

  ---

• 2011 (7) TMI 571
  

  Waiver of pre-deposit - Commercial training and coaching service - Assessee carry out part of their operations through third parties under a franchise agreement - Revenue submits that study materials on which exemption under Notification No. 12/2003 dated 20.6.2003 is being claimed by appellants have no price tag and are integral part of services rendered and study materials are not the text books - These materials are integrated to performance of service of coaching - Held that:- As the question of applicability of exemption under Notification No. 12/2003 has been examined in the case of M/s Sayaji Hotel Ltd.[2011 (1) TMI 650 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI] wherein it was held that such contracts are service contracts and no sale is involved in such transaction, therefore, segregation of value made in the invoice as taxable and non-taxable is just a ploy to evade service tax due on rendering of service - Held that :- appellants have not been able to prove prima facie case - Appellants have also not claimed the plea of financial hardship - Decided against the assessee.

  ---

• 2011 (7) TMI 570
  

  Promotion of brand name - service tax demand - Impugned period July, 2003 to February 2007 - Held that:- Allegation against the applicants is promotion of brand name and not the promotion of branded goods therefore, the said activity has come into taxable net w.e.f 01.07.2010 and the same has been considered in the case of Jetlite (India) Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, New Delhi (2010 (12) TMI 40 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI), wherein held that promoting the brand name does not fall under the category of ‘Business Auxiliary Services' - Therefore, the appellant have made out a strong prima facie case for complete waiver of pre-deposit of Service Tax, interest and penalty - Accordingly, the same is waived and recovery thereof is stayed during pendency of the appeal.

  ---

• 2011 (7) TMI 568
  

  Photography services - assessee did not debit CENVAT credit account for the period 1.2.2005 to 30.6.2006 - Held that:- The case law relied upon by the assessees namely Ad Vision Vs CST, Ahmedabad [2010 (11) TMI 294 - CESTAT, AHMEDABAD] holding that non-debit in CENVAT credit account of service tax is a technical ground and therefore demand of service tax is not justifiable, is applicable on all fours to the facts of the present case.

  In the present case contention of the assessees is that during the period of non-debit, sufficient credit was available. This statement is required to be verified by the adjudicating authority who is also required to consider the question of levy of interest and imposition of penalty, if it is found that sufficient credit was not available - thus the case remitted for fresh decision to the adjudicating authority.

  ---

1234567