|
Advanced Search Options
Service Tax - Case Laws
Showing 41 to 60 of 115 Records
-
2012 (8) TMI 567
Penalty - Erection, Commissioning or Installation service – non-payment of service tax – Held that:- Service liability is not shown separately - invoice is simply VAT/S.T. invoice - Appellants paid the Service Tax promptly as soon as it was pointed out before issue of show cause notice and taking registration also - They have not even questioned whether Sales Tax and Service Tax were leviable on the same transaction - lenient view as contemplated under Section 80 of Finance Act, 1994 - penalties under various Sections of Finance Act, 1994 imposed on the appellants are set aside and interest on service tax & service tax demand are upheld as not contested.
-
2012 (8) TMI 565
Extended period of limitation - Demand of duty – non-incaution of value of the sale of SIM card in gross taxable value – Held that:- Since the earlier decisions of the Tribunal were in favour of the assessee, it has to be held that there was bona fide doubt about the non inclusion of the cost of SIM card in the value of services. If that be so, no mala fide can be attributable to the appellant so as to invoke the extended period of limitation - demand raised beyond the period of limitation is barred by limitation - no penalty is imposable upon the appellants
-
2012 (8) TMI 564
Waiver of pre-deposit – denial of Cenvat credit of Service tax paid on stock brokers services - appellant is a promoter of Airtel JT Mobiles. They had held shares for a long time and finally they sold them and got out of the tag of promoters – Held that:- whether disinvest is business activity or not has to be considered in detail by examining the activities of the appellant over a period of time, its memorandum and articles of association and other relevant facts before coming to a conclusion – matter remanded - pre-deposit is to be waived
-
2012 (8) TMI 562
Proceedings initiated dis-allowing abatement in respect of GTA - Assistant Commissioner while allowing benefit of abatement, confirmed demand rejecting respondent's plea that GTA service provider has already discharged service tax liability - Commissioner(Appeals) during appeal adjudicated on benefit under Notification No. 32/04 - Held that:- Disputed issue was not any reference to claim of abatement which already allowed by the Asstt. Commissioner. Dispute before the Commissioner(Appeals) related to the actual payment of service tax of GTA service provider. Since, disputed issue does not stands considered and decided by the appellant authority, matter remanded back to Commissioner (Appeals) to deal with the appropriate dispute involved in the present appeal.
-
2012 (8) TMI 561
Waiver of pre-deposit - Service tax demand - amount received on sale of the flats which were in the appellant’s share in terms of their agreement with the land owners – Held that:- Prior to amendment, 16-6-2005, when Explanation to Section 65(105)(zzzh) was not there, the activity of construction of flats by the builder/developer for various prospective buyer against the flat agreement entered into by them could not be called the service of construction of residential complexes - requirement of pre-deposit of Service tax demand, interest and penalty is waived
-
2012 (8) TMI 560
Whether Payment of service tax can be made through Cenvat credit or in cash – recipient of service from overseas agents for procuring export orders – whether it can be treated as their output service – Held that:- Just because the person receiving a taxable service from an offshore service provider, by virtue of being liable to pay service tax in respect of the same is deemed to be “provider of taxable service” under Rule 2(r) of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004, there is no justification for invoking another legal fiction to treat the service so received by him as his “output service”, more so when the service received by him from offshore service provider having been used for providing some output service or having been used in or in relation to the manufacture of final product is covered by the definition of “input service” - service tax payment by a service receiver cannot be made by utilising the Cenvat credit - appellant directed to make pre-deposit
-
2012 (8) TMI 559
Consulting Engineer Service – Held that:- Dispute regarding classification falls within the phrase rate of duty and therefore, this Court has no jurisdiction to go into the same - appeal is rejected as not maintainable
-
2012 (8) TMI 535
Extended period of limitation - Whether incentive/commission/income received from various finance Co. and Banks would be chargeable to Service Tax as ‘Business Auxiliary service – Held that:- Information regarding commission received and also about payments received from the manufacturer was not disclosed in the service tax returns. This cannot considered as suppression with intent to evade tax, because the Assessee had a bona fide belief that they were not liable to pay tax on the amount received by them out of commission received by Maruti Udyog Ltd. on which Maruti Udyog Ltd. had paid Service tax - not a fit case to invoke the extended period alleging suppression - Appeal fails on account of time bar and also on merits.
-
2012 (8) TMI 534
Whether transfer of technology, technical know-how and Technical Assistance, received by the respondent, would not come within the scope of taxable service, viz., ‘Consulting Engineer Service”, as defined under Section 65(31) of the Finance Act, 1994 – Held that:- Question falls squarely within the exception carved out in Section 35G, ‘an order relating among other things, to the determination of any question having a relating to the rate of duty of excise or to the value of goods for purpose of assessment’, and the High Court has no jurisdiction to adjudicate the said issue - appeal lies to the Apex Court under Section 35L of the Central Excise Act, 1944, which alone has exclusive jurisdiction to decide the said question - appeal is rejected as not maintainable
-
2012 (8) TMI 531
Business Auxiliary Services - Job work - appellants working under job work, under the provisions of Rule 4(5)(A) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004, converting the steel plates supplied by M/s S Ltd into steel shells, agitators, baffles etc. and sending the goods back to the said M/s S - Revenue contending the same to be under BAS - period prior to 16.06.2005 - Held that:- There is no dispute that the appellants were producing goods for the clients and not on behalf of the clients as can be understood from the fact that the appellants are manufacturing goods as job workers. Scope of Business Auxiliary Services as defined u/s 65(19) of the Finance Act, 1994 was expanded to include the production of goods on behalf of the clients which does not amount to manufacture u/s 2(f) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 w.e.f 16.05.2005. Since, services undertaken by the appellants is not covered by the definition, no service tax is attracted. Accordingly, impugned order is set-aside. See Sonic Watches Limited (2010 (9) TMI 397 - CESTAT, AHMEDABAD) and Auto coats Vs CCE(ST),COIMBATORE [2009 (4) TMI 112 - CESTAT, CHENNAI] - Decided in favor of assessee.
-
2012 (8) TMI 530
Input service credit on after sales service – Held that:- Service of repair and maintenance of transformers during warranty period is a service covered by definition of input service and the assessees are entitled to take Cenvat Credit of service tax paid on such services - if after sale service expenses are included in the assessable value, the assessee is entitled for input service credit on the expenses incurred on after sales charges - appeal filed by the assessee is remanded to the adjudicating authority for verification whether after sales service charges are included in the assessable value or not as the assessee did not produce the Chartered Accountant's certificate before the adjudicating authority
-
2012 (8) TMI 504
Whether the assessee is liable to pay service tax under licence and technical assistance agreements for the overhaul and installation & commissioning of the gas turbines with a foreign company – Held that:- question relates to payment of rate of duty/tax - said question falls squarely within the exception carved out in Section 35G, ‘an order relating, among other things, to the determination of any question having a relation to the rate of duty of excise or to the value of goods for purposes of assessment - appeal lies to the Apex Court under Section 35L of the Central Excise Act, 1944 which alone has exclusive jurisdiction to decide the question - appeal is rejected as not maintainable
-
2012 (8) TMI 501
Commercial coaching and training services - alleged training of employees outside India as well as in India through availing services of parent company - demand imposed under the reverse charge mechanism for the services availed from foreign service provider - assessee contended that expenditure incurred in the foreign exchange are not for training purpose but are only towards travel, accommodation and other expenses - Held that:- Contention of the respondent has not been controverted by any supporting evidence by the Revenue. Hence, respondents are not liable to pay any service tax under reverse charge mechanism on the services availed by them from their parent company as they have not paid any remuneration for the training charges. If at all any charges were paid for training outside India is not chargeable to service tax as per provisions of Taxation of Services (Provided from outside India and received in India) Rules, 2006 - Decided against Revenue.
-
2012 (8) TMI 500
Refund Claim of Service Tax paid on services consumed within the SEZ and services which were used in the authorized operations of the SEZ units - partial denial on ground of absence of nexus and non-application of Notification No. 09/2009-ST - Held that:- Approval Committee, examined this issue and had issued a specific certificate indicating the various services received by the appellant and justification for use of such services in relation to authorized operations. Once the Approval Committee has given the nexus and the justification, rejection by the lower authorities of the refund claims of the service tax paid on various services on this ground is bad in law and is accordingly set aside.
In the case of services which are wholly consumed within the SEZ, there is no necessity to discharge the service tax liability ab initio. That does not mean that in a case where service tax liability has been discharged, the appellant is not eligible or not entitled for refund of the service tax paid under the provisions of Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944 r.w.s. 83 of the Finance Act, 1994. If the appellant is eligible for refund u/s 11B, then the same cannot be denied on the ground that the claim was made under Notification No. 09/2009-ST - Decided in favor of assessee.
-
2012 (8) TMI 499
Short payment of service tax and delay in payment - Held that:- The strict procedure of applying for provisional assessments or refund may not be applied in this case considering the facts that this was initial period of service tax levy and procedures had to evolve and settle
As the impugned service tax was always collected along with the bill amount and the money was always lying in the account of GOI a Department of GOI during the relevant period, was constrained in its method of collection of bills including service tax and adjustment thereof from one account of the GOI to the account of GOI for receiving service tax due to instructions issued by GOI, thus the amounts paid by customers inclusive of service tax were always in Government account and this is a matter of just adjustment of money from one account of GOI to another account of GOI. The short payment of tax for the disputed period is also very small - as the excess payment of tax deposited by the respondent for subsequent period was admittedly provisional there is no tax due from the respondent in the impugned matter - no need to collect any interest in the case of delay in deposit of service tax by Department of Post - in favour of assessee.
-
2012 (8) TMI 498
Revisionary proceedings by the Commissioner under Section 84 of the Act – whether Appellate Tribunal does not have jurisdiction to entertain the appeals filed against revisionary orders passed by Commissioners after 19.8.2009 – Held that:- Order passed by the Commissioner in such revision proceedings under the old Section 84 of the Act would be appealable to this Appellate Tribunal as if the words and figures "or section 84" had not been omitted from sub-section (1) of Section 86 of the Act - lis between the Department and the assessees commenced on the dates of institution of the revision proceedings and the law prevailing on such dates would govern the maintainability of appeals against the orders-in-revision - appeals are maintainable before this Appellate Tribunal
-
2012 (8) TMI 470
Rejection of refund claim in terms of Notification No.41/2007-ST dated 6.10.2007 - on challenge Commissioner (Appeals remanded the matter to the lower authority - Held that:- Considering the amended Section 35A w.e.f. 11-5-2001 under the Finance Act, 1994 Commissioner (Appeals) is not empowered to remand the matter and he has to decide the matter by himself, therefore the order of Commissioner (Appeals) remanding the case to the lower authority, is not sustainable.
Thus the Commissioner (Appeals) is certainly entitled to set aside order passed by the Adjudicating Authority and thereupon pass an appropriate order on merits by himself but not to remand the matter. Being so, Commissioner (Appeals) dealing with the appeals in relation to the service tax also is not empowered to remand the matter but he has to decide the matter by himself - remand the matter to the lower adjudicating authority making such further inquiry as may be necessary.
-
2012 (8) TMI 469
Power of the Commissioner (Appeals) to remand - export of Business Support Service - refund claim under Rule 5 of CENVAT Credit Rules 2004 read with Notification No. 5/2006 dated 14.3.2006 on input services used in the export of output services – Held that:- The Commissioner (Appeals) has examined and found nexus between the input services and the output services and has clearly rendered reasons for the same. In effect, the Commissioner (Appeals) has not remitted any issue on merits to be decided by the original authority. It is basically for quantification purposes as envisaged in the Board's Circular dated 19.1.2010. - Decided against the Revenue.
-
2012 (8) TMI 468
Manufacturing of Ready Mix Concrete - revenue contended the same to be Commercial & Industrial Construction Services - assessee contended that this activity is part of the sale transaction and it is not part of any construction services - Held that:- Tribunal in case of GMK Concrete Mixing (P.) Ltd. v. CST (2011 (11) TMI 425 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI) held that contract between the parties was to supply ready mix concrete (RMC) but not to provide any taxable service. Finance Act, 1994 not being a law relating to commodity taxation but services are declared to be taxable under this law, the adjudication made under mistake of fact and law fails. In view of aforesaid we allow the appeal by setting aside the impugned order.
-
2012 (8) TMI 467
Exemption relating to management, maintenance or repair of roads introduced by section 97(1) of the Finance Act, 2012 - Held that:- In view of the amended provision introduced by the Finance Act, 2012, and since case of the appellants is covered by the special provision for exemption, impugned demand does not survive - Decided in favor of assessee
|
