|
Advanced Search Options
Service Tax - Case Laws
Showing 1 to 20 of 145 Records
-
2011 (9) TMI 1149
... ...
... ... ..... ed to the authorities, sub-section 3 of Section 73 comes into operation, which mandates that the authorities shall not served any notice under sub-section 1 in respect to the amount so paid and initiates proceeding to recover any penalty. In that view of the matter, the order passed by the tribunal is in accordance with law. The substantial questions of law framed are answered in favour of the assessee and against the revenue.
-
2011 (9) TMI 1131
... ...
... ... ..... nformed to the authorities, then the authorities shall not serve any notice calling upon the authorities to pay penalty. It is unfortunate that in spite of statutory provisions, the authorities have issued show cause notice claiming penalty. So tax and interest was paid before issue of show cause notice. Therefore, the Tribunal was justified in setting aside those orders. As the said order is strictly in accordance with law we do not find any legal infirmity that calls for interference. Therefore, this appeal is dismissed. The substantial question of law framed is answered in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue.
-
2011 (9) TMI 1130
... ...
... ... ..... his Court upheld the said order in CEA No. 1/2009 and connected matters disposed off on 21st April, 2011. 3. Following the aforesaid judgment and the reasons set out therein, we do not see any ground to interfere with the order passed by the Tribunal. Hence, the appeal is rejected. The substantial question of law stands accordingly answered in the light of the judgment in CEA No. 1/2009 and connected matters disposed off on 21st April 2011.
-
2011 (9) TMI 1124
... ...
... ... ..... R Delay condoned. Issue notice to show cause as to why the appeal be not admitted. Mr. Tarun Gulati, learned counsel, accepts notice on behalf of respondent and seeks time to file counter affidavit. Let counter affidavit be filed within eight weeks. Rejoinder affidavit, if necessary, may be filed within four weeks thereafter. No stay.
-
2011 (9) TMI 1120
Liability of tax on sub-contractor - the main contractor has discharged the entire Service tax on the cost value of the contract - Revenue's grievance is limited to the fact that Commissioner (Appeals) has set aside the demand and penalties without actually verifying as to whether the prime contractor had discharged the tax on the full value of the contract or not.
Held that:- Inasmuch as the verification is one of the essential fact for setting aside of demand, we are of the view that matter should be remanded to the original adjudicating authority for carrying out the verification of the above factual fact and decide the consequent duty liability of the respondents - matter on remand.
-
2011 (9) TMI 1118
CENVAT credit - canteen services - Held that: - reliance placed in the case of Commissioner of Central Excise, Bangalore-III, Commissionerate Versus Stanzen Toyotetsu India (P.) Ltd. [2011 (4) TMI 201 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT], where it was held that it becomes a condition of service as far as the employees are concerned - credit allowed - decided in favor of assessee.
-
2011 (9) TMI 1094
Imposition of penalty u/s 76 of the FA, 1994 - The assessee has paid both the service tax and interest for delayed payments before issue of SCN under the Act - Section 73 of FA - Held that: - Sub-section (3) of Section 73 of the FA, 1994 categorically states, after the payment of service tax and interest is made and the said information is furnished to the authorities, then the authorities shall not serve any notice under sub-section (1) in respect of the amount so paid. Therefore, authorities have no authority to initiate proceedings for recovery of penalty u/s 76 of the Act - appeal dismissed - decided against Revenue.
-
2011 (9) TMI 984
... ...
... ... ..... the service provider was outside the country. The provision to tax for the services rendered under the Act did not apply to a person, who was outside the country. It is in that context, the amendment was brought in, to tax the service receiver, in case the service provider is outside the country. Therefore prior to 18-4-2006, service receiver should not have been taxed for the services provided by an NRI. That is what the Tribunal has found. In the circumstances the substantial question of law is answered in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue. 3. Appeal stands dismissed.
-
2011 (9) TMI 983
CENVAT credit - rent-a-cab service - outdoor catering service - Held that: - similar issue decided in the case of Commissioner of Central Excise, Bangalore-III, Commissionerate v. Stanzen Toyotetsu India (P.) Ltd., reported in [2011 (4) TMI 201 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT], where it was held that any service used by the manufacturer whether directly or indirectly in or in relation to the manufacture of final products constitutes input service. The catering service, rent-a-cab and transportation services and the tax paid on the said services are stated as input services - credit allowed - appeal dismissed - decided against Revenue.
-
2011 (9) TMI 967
... ...
... ... ..... Act. Sub-Sec.(3) of Sec. 73 of the Finance Act, 1994 categorically states, after the payment of service tax and interest is made and the said information is furnished to the authorities, then the authorities shall not serve any notice under sub-Sec.(1) in respect of the amount so paid. Therefore, authorities have no authority to initiate proceedings for recovery of penalty under Sec. 76 of the Act. 3. In that view of the matter, we do not see any merit in this appeal. The appeal is dismissed.
-
2011 (9) TMI 965
Penalty u/s 78 of the FA, 1994 - the assessee has paid the entire service tax with interest before the issue of SCN - invocation of Section 73 - Held that: - Once the duty and interest is paid and duly intimated to the authorities, sub-section (3) of the Section 73 comes into operation, which mandates that the authorities shall not serve any notice under sub-section (1) in respect to the amount so paid and initiate proceedings to recover any penalty - penalty set aside - appeal dismissed - decided in favor of assessee.
-
2011 (9) TMI 963
... ...
... ... ..... tioner is entitled to refund of ₹ 37 lacs. He has relied upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Bharat Petroleum Corp. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Sales Tax and Others (2008) 17 VST 162 (S.C.) . 5. A similar challenge was made by the petitioner in C.W.J.C. No. 10529 of 2011 in respect of the similar demand. The writ petition has been rejected by us on 8th July, 2011. 6. We see no justification for interfering with the discretionary order made by the Tribunal. The Tribunal was also justified in dismissing the appeal, for the petitioner failed to comply with the direction issued by the Tribunal. For the aforesaid reason the writ petition is dismissed. 7. We may, however, observe that if the petitioner pays ₹ 1.50 crores as directed by the Tribunal within four weeks from today and applies for restoration of the appeal, the Tribunal will consider and decide it in accordance with law. 8. The Appeal is dismissed in limine.
-
2011 (9) TMI 956
... ...
... ... ..... covered in the aforesaid judgment and therefore we do not see any merit in this appeal and accordingly it is dismissed. Misc. Cvl. 15040/11 is dismissed as unnecessary.
-
2011 (9) TMI 941
... ...
... ... ..... ed against the said order, this Court upheld the said order in C.E.A. No. 1/2009 and connected matters disposed off on 21st April 2011. 3. Following the aforesaid judgment and the reasons set out therein, we do not see any ground to interfere with the order passed by the Tribunal. Hence, the appeal is rejected. The substantial question of law stands accordingly answered in the light of the judgment in C.E.A. No. 1/2009 and connected matters disposed off on 21st April 2011 2012 (27) S.T.R. 225 (Kar.) .
-
2011 (9) TMI 852
Payment of service tax on Import of services – reverse charge method – utilization of cenvat credit – order of the tribunal sustained in which it was held that prior to 19.4.2006 recipient of services who was liable to pay service tax was entitled to avail cenvat credit for the purpose of making payment of service tax on import of services
-
2011 (9) TMI 837
Refund claim on the ground of amalgamation of companies providing services each other from last date. - Effective date of amalgamation - date of agreement or date of approval from high court - they filed refund claims of service tax paid during the period, on the ground that consequent upon amalgamation of the two with the holding company with effect from the appointed date they were one and the same entities and as such and The effective date as defined in the scheme of amalgamation approved by the Hon'ble High Court is the date relating to the implementation of the order as is clear from the date appearing in the said scheme - Held that:- As such, the service tax provided to the ITC Ltd. and Ansal Hotels Ltd. have to be considered as having been provided on behalf of the transferee company viz. ITC. Ltd., in which case, no service tax liability would arise against the service provider. - Decided in favor of assessee.
-
2011 (9) TMI 836
Information Technology Software Services – Export of service – refund – Held that:- service tax, on the output service provided by the applicant was effective from 16.05.2008 and that the rules specifically permitted registration within 30 days from the date of introduction of service tax on the said services. Once service tax is leviable from 16.05.2008, prima facie it is not correct to deny the benefit of credit on input services utilized from the said date. pre-deposit waived
-
2011 (9) TMI 835
Charges collected as 'Co-loaders'. - Courier agency - The Commissioner has held that the said activities fall under the category of 'Business Auxiliary Service' (BAS) and confirmed demand of service tax – Held that:- activities of the applicant as 'Co-loader', prima-facie, is falling under the category of BAS inasmuch as the applicant has rendered such services to other parties who provided courier services. Merely because the parties to whom they provided services were operating under the banner of DTDC in terms of franchise agreements, the said parties, prima-facie, cannot be treated other than as clients. - stay granted partly.
-
2011 (9) TMI 834
Waiver of pre-deposit - stay of recovery in respect of service tax - penalty - demand of service tax is under the head “Construction of Residential Complex Services' – Held that:- appellant constructed residential complexes for their clients. who, in turn, allotted the apartments to their employees for residential use. Considering the terms of the exclusion clause of the definition of "residential complex" ibid, prima facie , the activity undertaken by the appellant would fall within the ambit of this clause. The appellant also seems to have a fairly good case on limitation. waiver of pre-deposit granted
-
2011 (9) TMI 833
Waiver of pre-deposit and stay for recovery - Appellants contended paying service tax under the head ‘Works Contracts’ as per the agreement - Held that:- Nothing contained in the said agreement or in the bill that the appellant was executing 'Works Contract' as a composite contract - No amount of service tax mentioned in the records was paid by the appellant - Records indicates activity undertaken by appellant was 'Commercial and Industrial Construction' - stay granted partly.
........
|
