|
Advanced Search Options
Service Tax - Case Laws
Showing 1 to 20 of 134 Records
-
2012 (6) TMI 857 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... rused the records and documents produced before this Court. 6. The whole dispute revolves around the fact whether petitioner is entitled to Cenvat credit or not? The counsel appearing for the respondents states that credit was availed prior to the payment of tax. The petitioner contends that the petitioner has discharged the burden of tax. 7. Considering the circumstances of the case, in the interest of justice and taking into account the fact that the petitioner had discharged the burden of tax in its entirety, the impugned order passed by the 2nd respondent is set aside. The pre-deposit as ordered in the impugned order is dispensed with. The 2nd respondent is directed to take up the appeal and dispose of the same, after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The writ petition is allowed. Connected miscellaneous petition is closed. There shall be no orders as to the costs.
-
2012 (6) TMI 855 - CESTAT NEW DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... ies (supra) are under challenge before higher Courts. Revenue has further pleaded that the Commissioner (Appeals) has not taken into account the exact nature of the services and place of use of such service. The Appeal memorandum does not state the exact nature of the service or exact place of use of the service. The argument is apparently to the fact the services are utilized outside the factory. 5. The main leg of the argument of Revenue is that that the inclusive part of the definition cannot go beyond the means part of the definition of “input services”. 6. I find that all the issues raised by Revenue stand considered by the Tribunal in its decisions quoted above. In fact the decision in the case of Stanzen Tyotesu stands affirmed by Karnataka High Court as reported at 2011 (23) S.T.R. 444 (Kar.). 7. Since the issues are no longer res integra and are decided against Revenue the appeals filed by Revenue are rejected.” (Pronounced in Court)
-
2012 (6) TMI 792 - GAUHATI HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... hus, appears to be correct.” 11. In view of above authoritative pronouncements, covering of service of erection, commissioning and installation in the purview of “taxable service” cannot be held to encroach on the subject matter of “sale and purchase” under Entry 54 of List II. 12. Coming to the show cause notice, we are of the view that though the submissions made on behalf of the petitioner may require consideration, having regard to the fact that the petitioner is a Government Company and is executing work of border road and fencing but since the said issue is yet to be adjudicated upon by the adjudicating authority, we need not go into the matter, at this stage. Needless to say the adjudicating authority would examine the question raised by the petitioner and take a decision thereon in accordance with law by passing a speaking order. If aggrieved, the petitioner may take remedies available under the law. 13. Writ petitions stand disposed of.
-
2012 (6) TMI 789 - CESTAT KOLKATA
... ...
... ... ..... er, the ld. Advocate for the appellants has submitted that the appellants have produced the invoices and all documentary evidences including the documents for total availment of cenvat credit. 5. After hearing both sides, we find the appeals itself can be disposed of at this stage. Therefore, after waiving the requirement of predeposit of duties and penalties, we take up the appeals for disposal. 6. We find that that the appellants have produced the documents which were not before the ld. Commissioner and which are required to be examined. In these circumstances, we remand the case to the ld. Commissioner to decide the case afresh without insisting for any predeposit. All the issues are kept open. Both sides are at liberty to produce all the related documents in their support. Needless to say that a reasonable opportunity of hearing may be given to the appellants. Appeals are allowed by way of remand. Stay petitions are disposed of. Dictated and pronounced in the open Court.
-
2012 (6) TMI 786 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Consulting Engineer Service - tax liability - Whether the assessee is liable to Service tax under the definition ‘consulting engineer’ for the services rendered by them in the field of engineering to their clients and whether the amounts received by them for supply of technical know-how is liable to be treated as taxable services for recovery of the service tax? - Held that: - reliance was placed in the decision in the case of Commissioner of Central Excise v. Mahendra & Mahendra [2011 (2) TMI 872 - CESTAT, MUMBAI], where on similar issue it was held that the assessee is not liable to the service tax - appeal dismissed - decided against Revenue.
-
2012 (6) TMI 784 - CESTAT BANGALORE
... ...
... ... ..... d reject the software if the software is not to their satisfaction. After completion, the ownership/intellectual property rights relating to deliverables shall be with Infosys. These parameters would indicate that it is not a case of ‘manpower supply’. He also relies on the Stay Order Nos. 657 & 658/2012 in Stay Application Nos. 855/2010 & 361/2011 in Service Tax Appeal Nos. 1488/2010 & 573/2011 in respect of M/s. IDS Systems Pvt. Ltd. wherein waiver was granted treating similar activities as falling under the category of ‘Information Technology Services’ taxable w.e.f. 16.05.2008. 4. Learned Commissioner (AR) fairly submits that the facts of the present case and the facts in the case of IDS Systems Pvt. Ltd. are substantially the same. 5. In view of the above, there shall be waiver of pre-deposit of balance of dues as per the impugned order and stay of recovery thereof till disposal of the appeal. (Pronounced & dictated in open Court)
-
2012 (6) TMI 723 - CESTAT, MUMBAI
Plea for waiver of pre-deposit - Banking and Financial Services - assessee alleged of not discharging tax liability on import of service on the basis of transactions entered into with ADB and IFC - payments made towards commitment charges, up-front fee, arrangement fee, agency fee and out of pocket expenses paid to ADB and IFC in respect of funds borrowed from aforesaid institutions - Held that:- Since issue involves interpretation of various provisions of law such as Article 246, 253 of the Constitution of India, the various provisions of ADB and IFC Act and the provisions of United Nations (Privileges and Immunities) Act, 1947 and Finance Act, 1994. Therefore, appellant has made out a case for 100% waiver of pre-deposit, accordingly, we waive the requirement of pre-deposit of entire amount of service tax, interest and various penalty and recovery thereof stayed during the pendency of the appeal.
-
2012 (6) TMI 722 - CESTAT, MUMBAI
Business Auxiliary Service - Duty demand on collecting Passenger Service Fees (PSF) from the passengers who embark on a flight of the airlines - Held that:- As the applicants have no choice but to collect this PSF on behalf of AAI as per the reference to Ministry of Civil Aviation and they are bound to do collection of PSF for AAI, the activity undertaken by the applicant covers under ‘Business Support Service' and are not liable to pay service tax under ‘Business Auxiliary Service'- complete waiver of pre-deposit of the demands
-
2012 (6) TMI 721 - CESTAT, MUMBAI
Denial of benefit of Notification No.12/2003-ST dated 20.6.2003 - appellant is engaged in providing the service of commercial training and coaching - AO denied granting benefit of Notification as the appellant is providing study material to students and the value of the said material has not been included in the assessable value - Held that:- A s decided in PINNACLE Versus COMMISSIONER OF C. EX., CHANDIGARH [2011 (8) TMI 570 (Tri)]it is not in dispute that the activity of the company is to provide coaching and the Revenue has not disputed the fact that the study materials were purchased by the appellants, therefore there is nothing in the Notification No.12/2003-ST which would help Revenue in their arguments. The Circular of CBEC No.59/8/2003-ST dated 20.6.2003 states that such exemption will be applicable only if material sold is ‘standard textbooks'. The question as to what is a ‘standard textbook' can lead to disputes, since the expression is not used in the notification and the fact that the books sold are of another entity, we do not find any reason to deny the benefits of the Notification No.12/2003-ST - in favour of assessee.
-
2012 (6) TMI 720 - CESTAT, AHMEDABAD
Waiver of pre-deposit – Commercial Construction and Industrial Services or works contract - appellant was providing "Commercial Construction and Industrial Services" right from the beginning and after the introduction of services "Works Contract" with effect from 01.6.2007, they opted to pay service tax on the services provided by them under the category of Works Contract – Held that:- Board Circular dated 24.08.2010 has clarified that the services could be considered as works Contract services. Having given no reason in order in original, for classifying the services rendered by the appellant under the category of "Commercial Construction and Industrial Services", just simply denying the claim of the assessee , that services are not Works Contract services. Appellant has made out a prima facie case for waiver of pre-deposit
-
2012 (6) TMI 719 - CESTAT, CHENNAI (THIRD MEMBER)
Valuation (Service Tax) - Goods and materials sold by service provider to recipient of service - Retreading of tyres on job work basis - Maintenance and Repair service - tax paid on labour charges shown in the invoices and did not include cost of tread material procured - Notification No.12/03-ST – Held that:- Service provider is required to produce documentary proof specifically indicating the value of the said goods and materials so sold by them - invoices unilaterally raised by the appellants indicating the break-up without substantiating the amount attributable to the value of the goods supplied cannot be considered as documentary proof for the purposes of the said notification - assessee has not proved that the conditions under Notification 12/03 ST dated 20.06.2003 have been satisfied and, therefore, they are not entitled to the benefit of deduction of cost of raw materials consumed in providing the impugned service.
-
2012 (6) TMI 693 - CESTAT, MUMBAI
Manpower Recruitment and Supply Agency Services - Plea for waiver of pre-deposit - Revenue contended that gross salary paid to the employees has to be taken into account for paying the service tax whereas applicant contended that persons, supplied by the applicant are the employees of the M/s P and the applicants are not liable to pay service tax on same, however tax on commission received is paid - Held that:- Since applicant is receiving commission on monthly salary, the applicants are covered under ‘Manpower Recruitment and Supply Agency Services'. Therefore, applicant has failed to make out a case for 100% waiver of pre-deposit of the demand. Accordingly, applicant is directed to make a pre-deposit of 50% of the service tax within stipulated time.
-
2012 (6) TMI 692 - CESTAT, MUMBAI
‘Cable Operators Service' - re-transmission of TV signals to various cable subscribers - SCN issued for recovery of service tax and and also for commission received from their signal supplier under the category of ‘Business Auxiliary Service' - assessee contended that if the services of signal received by them is considered as ‘input service', their tax liability will be nil - Held that:- If the appellants had paid the service tax for obtaining signal from their service provider they are entitled for ‘input service' credit. If the service tax has been paid by the appellants on input service is equal to the service tax liability, the same has to be verified from the records of the appellants. In view of aforesaid, matter is remitted back to the adjudicating authority for fresh adjudication. Further, appellant is directed to pay interest on admitted under the category of ‘Business Auxiliary Service' and ‘Renting of Immovable Property Services'.
-
2012 (6) TMI 691 - CESTAT, CHENNAI
Waiver of pre-deposit of service tax – relevant date - refund alleged to be erroneously refunded to the assessees – Held that:- date when payment for services exported was received was the relevant date. assessees have made out a case for unconditional waiver and accordingly dispense with pre-deposit of tax and interest.-
-
2012 (6) TMI 690 - CESTAT, CHENNAI
Civil Work such as, foundation, control room, etc., and electrical work such as, earthing station, transformer etc., including material supplies - Held that:- service tax could not be demanded on Works Contract which at that time was held to be not vivisectable. They were under a bona fide belief that Works Contract was not liable to tax. Demand is time-bared and, therefore, not sustainable.
Regarding Erection Charges - service tax of ₹ 3.25 crores (approx.) has already been paid out of ₹ 3.64 crores confirmed [the Commissioner has examined the claim of abatement and rejected it on the ground of certain discrepancy]. However, taking into account those discrepancies only an amount of ₹ 4 lakhs can be said not to have been paid by the assessees. Pre-deposit waiveed
Regarding TNEB Infrastructure Charges - Held that:- As per the Electricity Act, 2002, it is the responsibility of the generating company to establish transmission lines, sub-station etc., and the wind mill operator is required to pay Infrastructure Development charges to the Electricity Board towards strengthening the power evacuation capability and connectivity to the power handling system of Electricity Board. These charges are paid on behalf of their clients by the assessees to the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board and, therefore, the assessee have made out a prima facie for waiver.
Regarding Land Development Charges - demand was raised for tax under a particular category, while the impugned order demands tax in another category, which was not the case made out in the show-cause notice. Pre-deposit waived.
-
2012 (6) TMI 667 - CESTAT, MUMBAI
Service tax demand on supervision, sampling and analysis services - agreement entered - Held that:- As the service tax has been paid on supervision, sampling and analysis charges, KPCL,no demand is sustainable against the appellant - as the appellant has failed to produce the invoices raised by the KPCL wherein the service tax has already been paid the matter needs re-examination at the end of the lower authorities.
-
2012 (6) TMI 666 - CESTAT, AHMEDABAD
Stay Petition for waiver of the duty confirmed – Revenue has sought Service Tax under the category of Business Auxiliary Service – assessee stated that Service Tax liability for the first year needs to be computed after giving them the benefit of small scale exemption and in the second year, the amount which has not been included by them in the Service Tax returns was in respect of the services rendered on behalf of the client and that also in relation to agriculture – Held that:-As first adjudicating authority while disposing the issue of eligibility of small scale exemption, specifically records that the appellant is eligible for small scale exemption, but includes the said amount for confirmation of demand - as regards the claim in respect of the services rendered in relation to agriculture on perusal of the definition and the related notification on the tax liability under Business Auxiliary Service the appellant may be eligible for the benefit of exemption notification as regards services provided in relation to agriculture - set aside the impugned order and remand the matter back to adjudicating authority to reconsider the issue afresh, after following the principles of natural justice – in favour of assessee.
-
2012 (6) TMI 665 - CESTAT, CHENNAI
Waiver of predeposit of service tax - Consulting Engineering Services – reimbursement amount received by their service engineers who were rendering the services of erection and commissioning of textile machineries – Held that:- Services would fall under the category of Erection, Commissioning and Installation Service and not under the category of “Consulting Engineering Services”. Pre-deposit waived.
-
2012 (6) TMI 664 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI
Waiver of pre-deposit – CENVAT Credit – Denial of credit on invoices issued by five star hotels for renting out conference rooms on the ground that invoices did not contain details as per Rule 4A of Service Tax Rules, 1994 read with Rule 9 of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 – Held that:- Service of providing conference rooms comes within the purview of Mandap Keeper service and aggregate value of such services is the amount received by the Mandap keeper for such service – If the amount indicates the value of food separately, the service provider is eligible for claiming rebate and if they have not claimed such rebate, Revenue cannot force such a service provider to claim abatement – Invoice for an amount of Rs. 8722 issued in the name of director doubtful, pre-deposit ordered
Denial of credit on invoices issued by telecom service providers – missing details furnished subsequently - no sufficient reason to call for pre-deposit – Pre-deposit waived
-
2012 (6) TMI 663 - CESTAT, BANGALORE
Waiver of pre-deposit – tour operator service – Held that:- appellant did not have service tax liability prior to 16.05.2008, the date on which Section 65(115) of the Finance Act 1994 was amended to widen the definition of “tour operator”. Pre-deposit waived.
........
|
