|
Advanced Search Options
Service Tax - Case Laws
Showing 101 to 120 of 121 Records
-
2013 (1) TMI 163
Commercial Coaching or Training Services - period 01-04-2005 to 31-03-2010 - Held that:- As decided in Administrative Staff College of India Versus Commissioner of Customs & Central Excise, Hyderabad [2008 (8) TMI 194 - CESTAT, BANGALORE] the very fact the word commercial has been used indicates that the word 'commercial' Qualifies the Commercial coaching or training centre. It doesn't qualify coaching or training. It qualifies the centre. As long as the institution is registered under the Societies Registration Act and also exempted from income-tax, it cannot be considered as a commercial centre. Therefore, no service tax is leviable under the category of Commercial Coaching or Training & in Ahmedabad Management Association Versus Commissioner of Service Tax, Ahmedabad [2008 (11) TMI 126 - CESTAT, AHMEDABAD] that service tax on various seminars and meetings under convention service not justified as tax is leviable only if it is rendered by a commercial concern prior to 1-5-2006.
The decision in the case of Administrative Staff College (supra) has been upheld by the Apex Court as reported at Commissioner v. Administrative Staff College of India [2010 (3) TMI 906 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] & Ahmedabad Management Association has been set aside by the Apex Court and remanded for denovo consideration in the light of the retrospective amendment made by Finance Act, 2010 as reported at Commissioner v. Ahmedabad Management Association (2010 (10) TMI 908 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA).
Having considered all the aspects above prima facie view that the word "commercial" in definitions at section 65 (26) and 65 (27) and 65 (105) (zzzc) cannot be considered to be superfluous and the explanation added by Finance Act, 2010 may not be a sufficient reason to take a view that the impugned training to be a "commercial training". As substantial part of the demand is confirmed invoking extended period of five years and such extended period may not be available while demanding short paid taxes on account of such interpretational issues - waiver of requirement of pre-deposit of dues for admission of the appeal and there shall be stay on collection of dues arising from the impugned order during the pendency of the appeal -in favour of assessee.
-
2013 (1) TMI 143
Waiver and stay of demand - Extended period of limitation - Suppression of value of taxable service - Section 73(1) of the Finance Act, 1994 - Management consultant service – Exempted services other than exports - Assessee was required to provide customized software and infrastructure to conduct tests at different designated test centers in India – Held that:- The entire amount was included by the assessee in their ST-3 returns, albeit as non-taxable. They also declared in their returns that these amounts were based on their books of accounts. At the stage of audit objection, they produced these books of accounts including the agreement, which was in July, 2006. Nevertheless, the show-cause notice came to be issued only in June 2008. This delay is not satisfactorily explained in the show-cause notice or in the Order-in-original. Waiver of pre-deposit and stay of recovery allowed
-
2013 (1) TMI 142
Input service distributor - Rule 2(m) of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 – CENVAT Credit on capital goods – Capital goods installed at any other place - Business of providing telephone services - Discharge service tax liability separately on services rendered by different Secondary Switching Areas (SSAs) - each SSA is registered under Service Tax Laws - BSNL, Salem had taken CENVAT credit on certain equipments installed at other SSAs – Revenue contended that such credit cannot be allowed because the equipments were not used in the premises of the entity paying service tax namely BSNL Salem - Assessee contended that the premises where the equipments are used belong to BSNL and not to any other party and it is also used for completion of services originating from Salem
Held that:- Basically the issue involved is one of procedures and not a case of mis-utilisation of any ineligible credit. Since MODVAT credit is a substantial benefit, we are of the view that the impugned credit should not be denied on account of procedural defects of minor nature as pointed out by the Revenue. Therefore, we hold that the impugned order is not maintainable. In favour of assessee
BSNL may please note that the procedure laid down under the Rules are intended to be followed and cannot be circumvented by quoting different decisions of the Tribunal. There should be an earnest attempt on the part of BSNL to follow the procedure laid down in Relevant Rules
-
2013 (1) TMI 141
Waiver of Pre-deposit - Club or Association Service - Assessee is a co-operative society - Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 – Set up a Common Effluent Treatment plant for providing effluent treatment to their member industries - Section 145 of the Finance Act, 2012 - Held that:- Section 145 of the Finance Act, 2012 granted retrospective exemption in respect of the effluent plants
‘Project’ means common facility set-up for treatment and recycling of effluents and solid wastes, with financial assistance from the Central Government or a State Government
As the 50% of the project cost was raised by the members for setting up the effluent plant and remaining by subsidy i.e. 25% subsidy from Ministry of Environment and Forest, 20% subsidy from MIDC and 5% subsidy from MPCB. Set aside the order in favour of assesse
-
2013 (1) TMI 118
Instructions for appeal filed before the Tribunal - appeal need not be filed before the Tribunal for the amount less than rupees 5 Lakhs - Held that:- Considering the case decided in Stovec Industries Limited [2013 (1) TMI 72 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT] in the instant appeal the amount of service tax involved is Rs. 2,02,472/- only and penalty of Rs. 2,02,472/- only. Therefore, in view of the circular dated 17.08.2011, the appeal could not be preferred by the Central Excise and Customs Department before this Court. It cannot be gainsaid that the Department is bound by its own circulars. As after circular dated 17.08.2011 no other circular has been issued by the Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue Central Board of Excise and Customs, Government of India, New Delhi, authorizing the Department to file appeals where the amount is less than Rs. 10 lacs - dismiss the appeal filed by the Revenue
-
2013 (1) TMI 117
Denial of CENVAT credit on insurance service - Held that:- As decided CCE, Bangalore-III Vs. Stanzen Toyotetsu India (P) Ltd. [2011 (4) TMI 201 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT] having regard to the provisions of the Employees State Insurance Act, 1948 and the Workmens Compensation Act the insurance policy taken by the assessee was a service constituting activity relating to business and hence an input service under Rule 2(l) of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 for the purpose of CENVAT credit. As the Hon'ble High Court's judgment was accepted by the Department assessee's appeal is allowed in this case.
-
2013 (1) TMI 116
Interest on refund claim rejected - Held that:- As decided in Swaraj Mazda Ltd. [2008 (7) TMI 420 - HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY] unless a finding is recorded that an application that was filed by the Petitioner under Section 11B of the Central Excise Act 1944 cannot be termed as an application made under Section 11B, liability to pay interest after expiry of a period of three months from the date of receipt of that application cannot be denied.
In the present case the Respondent has not recorded any finding within a period of three months from the date of receipt of the Application dated 11th September, 2004, that the Application cannot be termed as an application under Section 27 of the Customs Act, 1962. Therefore, the liability to pay interest to the Petitioner after expiry of a period of three months from the date of receipt of the Application dated 11th September, 2004 cannot be denied.
-
2013 (1) TMI 115
Excess credit taken on service tax and education cess (including SHE) - order demanding reversal of credit - Held that:- Relying upon the ST-3 returns filed by the respondent's Alkapuri Unit before the authorities for the period October 2007 to March 2008 and submits that there was a closing balance of ₹ 12,87,034/- and ₹ 28,376/-. It is his submission that since the unit at Alkapuri was closed, the entire amount lying in credit was taken into account by their Maneja unit. On perusal of the records it seems so.
As both the lower authorities have not called for any report from officers in charge of Alkapuri unit as to whether there is a closing balance or not, which needs to be verified by the lower authorities - the impugned order needs to be set aside and the matter be remanded back to the adjudicating authority for reconsideration - in favour of assessee by way of remand.
-
2013 (1) TMI 93
Rejection of refund claim - Held that:- Tribunal vide order dated 15.5.2012 has set-aside the said orders in appeal which was relied to reject the refund claim and allowed the refund claims filed by the appellant. Thus the base of the first appellate authority to reject the claim has already been decided by this Tribunal in favour of the assessee and hence, these appeals also need to be allowed.
-
2013 (1) TMI 92
Short payment of Service Tax - GTA services - period January 2005 to March 2007 - Held that:- This issue needs to be appreciated factually as the first appellate authority has recorded that the appellant has produced challans which were not in respect of the period for which the demand has been raised, while it is the claim of the appellant that they have paid differential Service Tax liability.
Since the issue needs to be factually verified and concluded set aside impugned order and remand the matter back to the adjudicating authority to reconsider the issue afresh, after following the principles of natural justice - assessee's appeal allowed by way of remand.
-
2013 (1) TMI 91
Condonation of delay of 104 days - petitioner has paid around Rs.68,00,000/- towards service tax and Rs.5,00,000/- towards interest - Held that:- The writ petition is disposed of directing the respondents not to initiate or pursue any coercive steps against the petitioner under Section 87 of the Finance Act, 1994 or any other appropriate provision, till disposal of the petitioner's applications for condonation of delay and for grant of interim relief in the appeal preferred by the petitioner to the Tribunal on 26-9-2012.
The Revenue shall however be at liberty to pursue appropriate steps for recovery of the liability as determined in the Order-in-Original dated 30-1-2012 after disposal by the Tribunal of the aforementioned applications of the petitioner.
-
2013 (1) TMI 71
Interest for late payment of service tax - Held that:- The Deputy Commandant, the appellant herein before the Bench wants to withdraw the appeal as they have already paid the amount due to the Government of India as confirmed by a receipt for the payment. Since the amount of Rs.38,247/- confirmed as interest by the lower authorities has already been paid the appeal dismissed as withdrawn as requested by the appellant.
-
2013 (1) TMI 70
Rejection of refund claim - service tax collected by the landlord for renting the premises was illegally collected and therefore required to be refunded - Held that:- As correctly pointed out by the D.R. that the issue involved in this case is a question which has been addressed by retrospective amendment to the provisions of Section 65(105)(zzzz), i.e. to any person, by any other person, by renting of immovable property or any other service in relation to such renting, for use in the course of or, for furtherance of, business or commerce
By Finance Act, 2010, this section has been retrospectively amended to hold that it will have effect from 01.06.07 and it has held that service tax liability is correctly charged and collected by the authorities - against assessee.
-
2013 (1) TMI 69
Differential service tax liability based upon the reconciliations of the balance sheet figures and the ST-3 returns - period 2005-06 to 2006-07 - Held that:- Both the lower authorities have only recorded that the appellant had submitted reconciliation while it is the claim of the appellant that they had filed the entire set of documents. At this juncture, unable to proceed ahead on this matter as the adjudicating authority has recorded the submissions made by the appellant in one small paragraph wherein nothing is mentioned about submission of the records while the first appellate authority has recorded that there is nothing new which has been submitted while not giving the details which were submitted. Thus another opportunity should be given to the appellant to produce the documents before the lower authorities and try to convince them regarding the eligibility to deduction claim by them in their reply to the show cause notice.
-
2013 (1) TMI 68
Wrong abatement claimed under Notification No. 15/2004-ST - Held that:- As seen from the records that the appellant has not agitated the issue of eligibility of abatement of 67% on the materials supplied by them for rendering Repair and Maintenance Services to ONGC before the adjudicating authority & have raised this point before the first appellate authority.
Thus interest of justice demands that appellant should be allowed to raise this point before the adjudicating authority in order to get an order on the merits of the issue - direct the appellant to deposit an amount of Rs. 1,00,000/- within a period of four weeks from today and report compliance to the adjudicating authority on 16.01.2013.
-
2013 (1) TMI 49
Includability or non includability of reimbursement charges in the gross value for determination of service tax liability - appeal dismissed on ground of delay of 10 days - Held that:- As decided in Improvement Trust, Ludhiana Vs. Ujagar Singh & Ors [2010 (6) TMI 660 - SUPREME COURT] that unless malafides are writ large on the conduct of the party delay should be condoned. In the legal arena, an attempt should always be made to allow the matter to be contested on merits rather than to throw it on such technalities.
Thus in the present case appeal should have been decided on the merits by the first appellate authority. Dismissing the appeal by not condoning the delay of 10 days in filing the appeal before the first appellate authority, the said dismissal is not in consonance of the law as has been settled by the apex court above - delay should have been condoned by the first appellate authority and the matter should have been decided on merits.
-
2013 (1) TMI 48
Imposition of penalty u/s 78 - Penalty for suppressing, etc., of value of taxable services - Goods Transport Agency - Rule 2(1)(d)(v) - Paid commission to overseas service provider - Reverse charge - Service tax has been paid along with interest on pointing out by the department during the course of investigation - Held that:- Following the decision in case of AMMAN STEEL CORPORATION(2011 (2) TMI 470 - CESTAT, CHENNAI) that if the appellant have paid the service tax they are entitled to take credit of the same. In that view, it cannot be said that by suppressing the fact that the appellants are going to get extra benefit on account suppression. Therefore penalty u/s 78 is not sustainable. In favour of assessee
-
2013 (1) TMI 47
Waiver of pre-deposit - Stay of recovery - Business Auxiliary Service - Money Transfer and related services - The assessee were distributing the money to the customers of Western Union money transfer in India - Held that:- Following the decision in case of MUTHOOT FINCORP LTD.(2009 (8) TMI 236 - CESTAT, BANGALORE) that the services rendered by appellant directly to principal abroad whose beneficiaries are outside India are not taxable service in India. Therefore pre-deposit of the dues are waived and recovery of the same is stayed. In favour of assessee
-
2013 (1) TMI 24
Penalty u/s 77- Penalty u/s 78 - Security services provider - Short payment of service tax - On being pointed out, they have discharged the service tax liability along with interest - Held that:- They have also collected the higher amount of service tax from the service recipients but paid to the Government lesser amounts. This position stands accepted by the proprietor of the appellant firm. Ingredients of section 78 justifying imposition of equal amount of penalty are evidently available on records. There is no justification for waiving penalty u/s 78 and 77. In favour of revenue
-
2013 (1) TMI 23
Short payment of Service tax - Stock broking services - demand of pre deposit - Held that:- The appellant has not made out a prima facie case for complete waiver of the amounts involved. Accordingly, the appellant are directed to make a further deposit of Rs.20,000 within a period of four weeks from today and report compliance on 22.10.2012.
....
|
