|
Advanced Search Options
Service Tax - Case Laws
Showing 61 to 80 of 145 Records
-
2011 (9) TMI 721
When the service provider is outside the country who has no fixed establishment or permanent address in the country, the service rendered by him inside the country is to be taxed at whose hands - prior to 18-4-2006, service receiver should not have been taxed for the services provided by an NRI - Decided in favor of the assessee
-
2011 (9) TMI 699
Penalty - courier service - Assessee has paid service tax though not regular, he had paid an amount of Rs. 38,378/- prior to issue of show cause notice and after the issue of show cause notice, an amount of Rs. 92,305/- was paid - When two fact finding authorities have held the non-payment of service tax was not intentional, it was not with any intention to avoid tax, considered the circumstances in which the assessee was placed and reduced the penalty payable, it cannot be said that the said order suffers from any legal infirmity - The contention that once there is a default, the payment of penalty is automatically unsustainable in view of the language employed in Section 80 of the Act, where if a sufficient cause is made out for the default under any of these provisions, then no penalty shall be imposed - Decided in favor of the assessee
-
2011 (9) TMI 698
Demand - Business Auxiliary Services - Time limitation - In fact the assessee has contended that even if it falls under the category of Business Auxiliary Services, they rely on notifications and circulars issued by the Board, which grant them exemption - All that cannot be done by this Court in the appeal filed under Section 35(G) - Appeal is rejected
-
2011 (9) TMI 697
Penalty - When two fact finding authorities have held the non-payment of service tax was not intentional, it was not with any intention to avoid tax, considered the circumstances in which the assessee was placed and reduced the penalty, it cannot be said that the said order suffers from any legal infirmity - The contention that once there is a default the payment of penalty is automatically unsustainable in view of the language employed in Section 80 of the Act, where if a sufficient cause is made out for the default under any of these provisions, then no penalty shall be imposed - Decided in favor of the assessee
-
2011 (9) TMI 690
Penalty - the Commissioner has imposed a penalty of Rs. 7,00,000/- under Sec. 78 and penalty of Rs. 200/- per day under Sec. 76 of the Finance Act, in pursuance of the power of suo motu revision - Held that: once the original authority being satisfied about the cause shown, exercised its power under Sec. 80 of the Act and did not impose penalty, the Commissioner has no jurisdiction to interfere with such discretionary orders and impose penalty in pursuance of his revisional jurisdiction - Appeal is dismissed
-
2011 (9) TMI 689
Refund - The authorities by an order dated 23-10-1990, rejected the refund claim of Rs. 4,48,188/- as time-barred - the adjudicating authority has passed a lengthy order referring to various judgments, in the light of the finding regarding unjust enrichment, held in favour of the assessee, which has attained finality and the Madras High Court judgment is operative, we cannot make out the ground on which these proceedings are initiated - It is made clear that while issuing notice, they should bear in mind that the question of unjust enrichment cannot be gone into over again, as the finding in favour of the assessee has attained finality - Appeal is allowed
-
2011 (9) TMI 675
Whether payment of Service Tax on "GTA Service" can be made by utilizing Cenvat Credit - Assessee relied on Nahar Industries(Tri-Delhi) - Revenue: decision applicable only till 19.04.06 - Held That:- Deposit of 50% of duty involved recovery of balance amount stayed during the pendency of the appeal
-
2011 (9) TMI 631
Cenvat Credit - "Outdoor Catering" Service - Held That:- Once the service tax is borne by the ultimate consumer of the service, namely the worker, the manufacturer cannot take credit of that part of the service tax. Reliance placed on Ultratech Cement Ltd (2010 - TMI - 77914 - High Court of Bombay). Decided against assessee.
-
2011 (9) TMI 597
Cenvat Credit - Service tax paid in cash and not under protest - Held that:- original payment of service tax was made through CENVAT credit account. Hence the refund also will be allowed through CENVAT credit account only.
Appeallant paid duty in cash and reversed credit - Held That:- Department cannot seek to retain the tax paid twice for the same transaction, Assessee is entitled for the refund of the tax payment made through the CENVAT credit account.
-
2011 (9) TMI 570
Refund claim - Unjust enrichment cannot be made as a ground for rejection of refund - Case shall be first decided on merits and thereafter principle of Unjust Enrichment to be applied.
-
2011 (9) TMI 543
Refund of Service Tax paid under Reverse Charge from August, 2002 to August, 2004 - Refund Claim - Held That:- in appellant's own case for the same period (2007 -TMI - 1523 - CESTAT, MUMBAI), it was held that the services availed by the appellant are not taxable service - refund to be allowed.
Unjust Enrichment - The issue of unjust enrichment has not been dealt with - Held That:- Case referred back to look into the issue.
-
2011 (9) TMI 533
Confirmation of demand of service tax with penalty - Cross Objections - assessee did not file appeal against order in original but filed cross objection against appeal filed by revenue before commissioner (appeal) - Commissioner (appeals) rejected the appeal of the revenue as well as cross objection as not maintainable - held that:- In view of Southern Auto Products vs. CCE, (2007 -TMI - 75457 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT). Decided in favor of assessee.
-
2011 (9) TMI 523
Waiver of penalty u/s 76, 77 & 78 of the Finance Act, 1994 – Held that:- Since the appellant came forward for registration and filed returns though for the impugned period there is a negative finding against it. However, on prayer of appellant it would be desirable to grant fair opportunity of hearing to him when mitigating factor such as early stage of implementation of law, appellant's ignorance about law, and grant of similar benefit to other small cable operators are said to be present. Thereby, penalty aspect is remanded to original authority.
-
2011 (9) TMI 511
Penalty by Commissioner as revisionary authority - Revenue demanded Service Tax & Interest on payment of commission to foreign parties during 9.07.04 to 31.03.06 - Held That:- In view of UoI Vs. Indian National Shipowners Association (2008 - TMI - 32013 - HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY), prior to 18.04.06, no Service Tax liability arises as recipient of services. If that be so, question of imposition of penalty non-payment of Service Tax during the relevant period does not arise.
-
2011 (9) TMI 510
Cenvat Credit on Outdoor Catering to provide food to employees - Held That:- Commissioner Vs. Ultratech Cement Ltd. (2010 - TMI - 78203 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT) once the service tax was borne by the ultimate consumer of the service namely the worker, the manufacturer could not take credit of that part of the service tax which was borne by the consumer. On this basis, the respondent cannot claim CENVAT credit of that part of the service tax which was borne by their employees.
-
2011 (9) TMI 509
Service Tax Credit on Mobile Telephone - Bill in employee name - Whether used for official purpose only - Held That:- the payment for the service has been made by the company only - calls made were relating to business would result in voluminous work for both sides, which would be unproductive. In view of CCE Vs Excel Crop Care Ltd (2008 - TMI - 31579 - HIGH COURT GUJARAT) credit was allowed.
-
2011 (9) TMI 508
Appeal dismissed for non-compliance of pre-deposit - Assessee engaged in construction services - Held - In view of CIT vs. Sindi Krishi Utpanna Bazar samitee, case remanded back with waiver of pre-deposit.
-
2011 (9) TMI 501
Levy of Interest - Held That:- Once there is delay in payment of service tax interest is payable.Finding that interest is not payable is erroneous.
Penalty - Imposed prior to Sub Section (3) of Section 73 - Tax and interest paid before issue of show cause notice - Held That:- Circular dated 20-10-2010 prohibiting the revenue from preferring an appeal where the tax effect is less than Rs. 2 lakhs. comes into effect prior to 1.11.10. Circular giving benefit to assessee can be applied retrospectively.
-
2011 (9) TMI 494
Clearing & Forwarding Agent or Distributor's Agreement - Parties involved: IPCL, Appellant, Buyers - Transportation and unloading charges are paid by IPCL, Property in goods remained with IPCL, Insurance was also organized by IPCL ,Bill and money was raised by appellant on their account. On detailed analysis of agreement following observation were recorded :- Agreement talks about appointment of Distributor, Could sell the product at price lower than indicated by company, Amount to be deposited subject to which goods will be released to the appellant for further sale, Product to be sold in original packing and original trade name, Unsold goods lying with the distributor title shall continue to vest in the hands of IPCL - Held That:- All the above condition state that the appellant were appointed as Distributors and not C&F Agent.- Decided in favor of assessee.
-
2011 (9) TMI 481
Cargo Handling Service - Transporting coal from wagons to Thermal Power Station by conveyor belt and not by any means of transportation - held that:- In the facts of the case the service rendered by Appellants cannot be considered as "Cargo Handling Services", in view of the decisions in the case of S.B. CONSTRUCTION COMPANY (2006 (8) TMI 28 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT) and Modi Construction Co. (2008 (6) TMI 22 - CESTAT, KOLKATA). Therefore, the Appellant succeeds on merits.
|
