|
Advanced Search Options
Service Tax - Case Laws
Showing 1 to 20 of 127 Records
-
2013 (6) TMI 852
... ...
... ... ..... . Accordingly, the Tribunal extended the period of compliance by order dt. 3.4.2013. Today, the advocate submits that they have deposited ₹ 7 lakhs only. We find that despite extension of period of compliance of stay order, the appellant has not complied with stay order. Hence, the appeal is dismissed for non-compliance of the stay order. (Dictated and pronounced in open court)
-
2013 (6) TMI 850
... ...
... ... ..... ner of C. Ex., Bangalore-III vs. Stanzen Toyotetsu India (P) Ltd. 2011 (23) S.T.R. 444 (Kar.) has held that benefit of CENVAT credit of service tax paid on ‘medical insurance’ and ‘outdoor catering services’ are admissible. Accordingly, the impugned order is set aside and appeal is allowed with consequential relief to the appellant. (Pronounced and dictated in the open court)
-
2013 (6) TMI 818
... ...
... ... ..... unal for fresh consideration in the light of the amendment made vide Finance Act, 2010. However, there is merit in the contention of the appellant that approval from AICTE is not required for conducting management courses, as such courses are not ‘technical education’. Since this decision is of very recent origin and was not before the adjudicating authority when the impugned order was passed, the matter has to go back to the original adjudicating authority for fresh determination as to whether the courses conducted by the appellant were recognized by law even without the approval from AICTE. Therefore, we remand the case back to the original adjudicating authority for fresh consideration after giving a reasonable opportunity to the appellant of being heard. Other issues raised by the appellant regarding time bar, non imposability of penalty etc. are also kept open. 6. Thus, the appeal is allowed by way of remand. (Operative part of the order pronounced in Court)
-
2013 (6) TMI 811
... ...
... ... ..... of ₹ 9,20,818/-. None appears on behalf of the applicant nor is there any compliance report on the record. In view of that the appeal is dismissed for want of compliance with Section 35F of the Central Excise Act, 1944. (Dictated and pronounced in open court)
-
2013 (6) TMI 810
... ...
... ... ..... National Shipowners Association v. Union of India - 2009 (13) S.T.R. 235 (Bom.). Prior to 18-4-2006, recipient of the service in India was not liable to pay Service Tax on the services provided by Foreign Service providers. Therefore, the impugned demand on M/s. Iftex Oil & Chemical Ltd. is not sustainable in law. 5.3 As far as the foreign entity M/s. Ethyl Petroleum Additives Inc., USA is concerned, it does not come within the jurisdiction of the Indian Service Tax authorities and it has not rendered any service in India. The service provider has supplied only technical know-how and supply of technical know-how does not come under the purview of Management Consultancy Service. If that be so, the question of liability on the foreign entity for the services rendered from abroad is also not sustainable. 6. In view of the above, we set aside the impugned order as the same is patently illegal and incorrect. The appeal is allowed. (Dictated and pronounced in Court)
-
2013 (6) TMI 809
... ...
... ... ..... purview of ‘Cargo Handling Service’. Nevertheless, the recipient of the service, M/s. Western Coalfields Ltd. has discharged service tax liability under the category of ‘Goods Transport Agency Service’. For the movement of the coal within the mining area, this Tribunal in the case of Sainik Mining & Allied Services Ltd. v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Customs & Service Tax 2008 (9) S.T.R. 531 and Commissioner of Central Excise & Customs v. B.K. Thakkar 2008 (9) S.T.R. 542 has held that excavation and transportation of coal/iron ore within mining area does not come under the category of ‘Cargo Handling Service’. Thus, prima facie, we find that the demand of service tax under the category of ‘Cargo Handling Service’ is not sustainable in law. 7. Therefore, we grant waiver from pre-deposit of the dues adjudged against the appellant and stay recovery thereof during the pendency of the appeal. (Dictated in Court)
-
2013 (6) TMI 808
... ...
... ... ..... ocation of extended period of time for confirmation of Service Tax demand and imposition of penalties on the appellant appear to be sustainable in law. 5.5 The appellant has not pleaded any financial hardship nor any evidence placed before us in that respect. As discussed above, the appellant has not made out any prima facie case in their favour. Therefore the balance of convenience lies in favour of Revenue and the appellant needs to be put to terms for hearing of the appeal. 6. In the light of the foregoing, we direct the appellant to make a pre-deposit of 50 of the Service Tax demand confirmed against them (including the payments already made) within a period of 8 weeks and report compliance on 19-8-2013. On such compliance, pre-deposit of balance of Service Tax, interest and penalties adjudged against the appellant shall stand waived and recovery thereof stayed during the pendency of the appeal. (Operative part of the order pronounced in the Court on 17-6-2013)
-
2013 (6) TMI 799
... ...
... ... ..... xpressing financial difficulties. Even if the whole amount received is treated as cum-service tax, the tax liability would be ₹ 70 lakhs as admitted by the appellant. In view of the above, we are not inclined to accept the plea of financial hardship while passing the interim order. This Tribunal has to take into account, prima facie case, interests of Revenue and balance of convenience while considering grant of stay. 6. In the present case, we find that no prima facie case has been made out against the demand of service tax. Therefore, Revenue’s interests needs to be protected and balance of convenience also lies in favour of Revenue. Therefore, we direct the appellant to make a pre-deposit of ₹ 35 lakhs within a period of twelve weeks and report compliance on 18-9-2013. On such compliance, pre-deposit of balance of service tax, interest and penalties shall stand waived and recovery thereof stayed during the pendency of the appeal. (Dictated in Court)
-
2013 (6) TMI 786
... ...
... ... ..... he present application was filed seeking reconsideration of the order dated 4.10.2012. Merits of the petitioner s claim for waiver of pre-deposit are pleaded in this application The stay application was disposed of on 4.10.2012 ex parte, since the petitioner failed to appear on the date scheduled for hearing of the stay application. Since the Miscellaneous Application No.4742/2012 filed thereafter was also rejected, we find no justification for consideration of the present Misc. Application. It is accordingly rejected. 3. It is stated by the petitioner that he has deposited Rs.1,50,000/- on 13.12.2012 and ₹ 1,57,003/- on 23.3.2013. These deposits do not however comply with the condition stipulated in the order dated 4.10.2012 , time for which was extended on 12.4.2012 until this date. 4. In the circumstances, since there is failure of the order of pre-deposit and transgression of the provisions of Section 35F of the Central Excise Act, 1944, the appeal stands rejected.
-
2013 (6) TMI 773
... ...
... ... ..... y deposited an amount of ₹ 15.00 lakhs and due to acute financial crisis of the Company they failed to deposit the balance amount in time. He submits that further six months time may be allowed for compliance of the stay order. 3. After considering the submissions of the Ld. Counsel, we extend the period of compliance for eight weeks and report compliance on 06.09.2013. 4. The miscellaneous application is disposed of. (Order dictated and pronounced in the open Court)
-
2013 (6) TMI 768
... ...
... ... ..... e nature of examination conducted to reach to the above conclusion. Probably such a failure caused prejudice to the appellant at prima facie stage before him. 2. It is the submission on behalf of the appellant that the appellant shall prima facie satisfy the authority on the claims in respect of each input service embodied in page 88-89 of the appeal folder to seek relief on pre-deposit. 3. Considering that the materials available on record of learned Commissioner (A) needs testing at the prima facie stage, it is not proper to keep the appeal pending in Tribunal. Disposing the stay application, appeal is remanded to learned Commissioner (Appeals) to reach to a prima facie conclusion looking to the merits of the case so as to pass an appropriate order under Section 35F of the Central Excise Act, 1944 read with Finance Act, 1994. 4. In the result, the stay application is disposed of and the appeal is remanded to learned Commissioner (A). (Pronounced and dictated in open Court)
-
2013 (6) TMI 720
... ...
... ... ..... and inaction on the part of the applicant, the delay is not to be condoned. In the present case, we find that the applicant received the impugned order and handed over the papers to the Ld. Consultant in October, 2011 and thereafter they have not taken any steps till the receipt of recovery notice dated 2.12.2012 from the Central Excise Department. It is stated in the application that they had a belief that the appeal and stay application must have been filed, which cannot be accepted for the reason that the appeal cannot be filed by mere handling over the papers to the Counsel, unless it is signed by the appellant. It is a clear case that there is a delay in filing of appeal due to negligence and inaction on the part of the applicant. Thus, there is no sufficient reason for condonation of delay in filing the appeal. 6. Accordingly, the COD application is rejected. The appeal along with the Stay application is also dismissed. (Order dictated and pronounced in the open Court)
-
2013 (6) TMI 711
... ...
... ... ..... fter completion of audit on 24.5.2008, revised ST-3 return was filed by the appellant on 23.7.2008 whereas Show Cause Notice dated 27.7.2009 was served on the appellant on 20.8.2009. Commissioner (Appeals) has held that limitation is to be computed from date of filing of ST-3 returns i.e. 23.7.2008. Commissioner has upheld invoking of extended period on the ground that advances were not reflected in original returns which amounts to suppression. I find the original returns was filed by the appellant on 25.4.2008 in which advances were not shown by the appellant. On being pointed out by Audit, appellant filed a revised return on 23.7.2008 whereas Show Cause Notice was served on the appellant on 20.8.2009. I therefore find no reason for invoking extended period after appellant filed revised return. I therefore hold that Show Cause Notice is hit by time limitation. Since demand is no sustainable on the limitation there is no case for imposition of penalty. 8. Appeal is allowed.
-
2013 (6) TMI 709
... ...
... ... ..... s were executed making specifically clear that supply was separate from the services provided. It is also undisputed fact that major supply of the goods was made making imports and a minor parts manufactured by the appellant have suffered duty. 11. In view of the above, there arise no liability at all on the supply part of contract executed by the appellant and service contract was discernible to recognise supply and service as separate contracts. Law relating to taxation of goods and service are separately enacted. The taxable service are taxed under Finance Act, 1994 and that cannot be in disguise taxed under Central Excise Act, 1944 adding to assessable value. The appellant’s case being a case of only supply of imported materials except a minor equipment suffering duty was supplied there shall be no levy of excise duty on the aforesaid services. Appellant’s appeal thus succeeds. In the result, the appeal is allowed. (Dictated and pronounced in open Court)
-
2013 (6) TMI 707
... ...
... ... ..... tment that there was deliberate delay on the part of the appellant in not preferring the appeal within the period of limitation and/or by not preferring the appeal within the period of limitation, the appellant was going to be benefited. In view of the above, we are of the opinion that the learned Tribunal ought to have condoned the delay and ought to have given an opportunity to submit the case on merits rather than non-suiting the appellant on the technical ground of delay. 4. In view of the above and for the reasons stated above, present appeal succeeds. The impugned order passed by the Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, Ahmedabad in Appeal No. 228/2012 (Application Nos. S.T./COD/775/2012, S.T./S/546/2012) dated 10th July, 2012, is hereby quashed and set aside and the delay caused in preferring the appeal is hereby condoned. Now, the Tribunal to decide and dispose of the appeal preferred by the appellant in accordance with law and on merits. No costs.
-
2013 (6) TMI 705
... ...
... ... ..... ervice Tax. This contention was considered by the lower appellate authority, who set aside the demand. Revenue is aggrieved of the same and is before us. 3. The only contention of the Revenue is that in some cases the invoice has been cancelled and the respondent has raised fresh invoice on the Head Office under the category of Maintenance or Repairs and, therefore, it should be presumed that the appellant has rendered the taxable service and hence, the Service Tax demand is to be upheld. 4. None appeared for the respondent and there is a request for adjournment. 5. After going through the appeal memorandum of the Revenue, we do not find any merit in the Revenue’s appeal. Service by the branch to Head Office cannot be considered as a taxable service. Therefore, the question of payment of any Service Tax on this service does not arise at all. In view of the above, we dismiss the appeal of the Revenue as devoid of merits. (Dictated and pronounced in Court)
-
2013 (6) TMI 649
Application for out of trun hearing - appellant has deposited the entire amount of service tax liability, interest thereof and part of the amount of penalty imposed under Section 78 - Held that:- Since we have already granted stay for the waiver of pre-deposit of balance amounts, we call for the early hearing application filed by the assessee and take up for disposal. We find that the total amount involved in this appeal along with interest and penalty is approximately Rs.6.40 Crores. Since the amount in this case is substantial, we allow the application for out of turn hearing of appeals and direct the registry to list the appeals for disposal on 10.7.2013.
-
2013 (6) TMI 648
Commercial and industrial construction services - non-remittance of service tax - stay - Held that:- On a prima facie, creative but unsustainable interpretation, the adjudicating authority found that the service provided by the petitioner pertained to construction of a dam which was an integral component of a hydro Electric project and is therefore outside the purview of the exclusion clause of Section 65(25)(b) which, excludes services provided in respect of roads, airports, railways, transport, terminals, bridges, tunnels and dams from the charge of service tax. Prima facie, we are of the view that the petitioner is immune to the liability of service tax in respect of provision of services in relation to construction of a dam, which is admittedly the service provided by the petitioner. - stay granted.
In respect of other transactions on which service tax has been levied viz. renting of immovable property service and supply of tangible goods service, we are not inclined prima facie, to grant any relief at this stage. - stay grated partly.
-
2013 (6) TMI 647
Rectification of mistake - Held that:- the finding of Tribunal that - "the original adjudicating authority in the course of denovo adjudication should also go into the question of unjust enrichment which has not been examined" is a mistake and needs to be rectified inasmuch as the Commissioner (Appeals) has admittedly considered the question of unjust enrichment and this was the only issue before him. In the light of observation that the Revenue has not challenged the finding of unjust enrichment arrived at by Commissioner (Appeals), we are of the view the Revenue's Appeal No. ST/181/2010 is required to be dismissed. We accordingly, rectify the said mistake and hold that whereas the Revenue's appeal No. ST/119/06 is allowed by way of remand for reconsideration of merits, Appeal No. 181/2010 is dismissed. However, we would like to make it clear that question of unjust enrichment would be relevant only if the Assistant Commissioner in denovo proceedings holds in favour of the assessee. - ROM application allowed.
-
2013 (6) TMI 646
Commercial or Industrial Construction Services - abatement of 67% - Held that:- it can be seen that completion and finishing services necessarily relate to an incomplete or unfinished building or civil structure and necessarily it has to be in relation to new building or a civil structure. A building which has already been completed and put to use does not need any completion or finishing services. Therefore, the activities of repair, alteration, renovation or restoration undertaken by the appellant prima facie comes under clause (d) and not under clause (c ) and, therefore, the appellant is prima facie eligible for the benefit of Notification No.1/2006-ST.
Tribunal inn the case of Agrim Associates Pvt. Ltd (2011 (4) TMI 845 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI) also held a similar view. - prima facie case is in favor of assessee - stay granted.
........
|
