Home Case Index All Cases Service Tax 2013 2013 2013 (6) Service Tax - 2013 (6) This

Law	-- All -- GST Income Tax Benami Property Customs Corporate Laws Securities / SEBI Insolvency & Bankruptcy FEMA PMLA Service Tax Central Excise CST, VAT & Sales Tax Wealth tax Indian Laws
Court	-- Any -- Supreme Court SC Orders / Highlights High Court Appellate Tribunal Tribunal Appellate authority for Advance Ruling Advance Ruling Authority National Financial Reporting Authority Competition Commission of India ANTI-PROFITEERING AUTHORITY Commission Central Government Board DISTRICT/ SESSIONS Court Commissioner / Appellate Authority Other
Citation	--Year-- 2024 2023 2022 2021 2020 2019 2018 2017 2016 2015 2014 2013 2012 2011 2010 2009 2008 2007 2006 2005 2004 2003 2002 2001 2000 1999 1998 1997 1996 1995 1994 1993 1992 1991 1990 1989 1988 1987 1986 1985 1984 1983 1982 1981 1980 1979 1978 1977 1976 1975 1974 1973 1972 1971 1970 1969 1968 1967 1966 1965 1964 1963 1962 1961 1960 1959 1958 1957 1956 1955 1954 1953 1952 1951 1950 Upto 1949 - -Volume- 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 -
Landmark	Nil - N/A Referred in >= 3 Cases Referred in >= 4 Cases Referred in >= 5 Cases Referred in >= 10 Cases Referred in >= 15 Cases Referred in >= 25 Cases Referred in >= 50 Cases Referred in >= 100 Cases
Order by	TMI Citation Date of Decision

Advanced Search Options

Service Tax - Case Laws

Showing 121 to 127 of 127 Records

• 2013 (6) TMI 52
  

  Condonation of delay - Advocate, due to problems in his matrimonial life, did not pay attention as a result of which the appeal could not be filed within the prescribed period of limitation. - held that:- There is no legal provision which provides for condoning the delay in filing the appeal on a condition of depositing 50% of the tax amount. The delay in filing the appeal is condoned or refused depending upon the sufficiency of cause for delay. If the party is found to be prevented by a sufficient cause to the satisfaction of the Appellate Authority/Tribunal, the delay is condoned and if not found to be prevented by a sufficient cause, the delay is not condoned. - matter restored before tribunal for fresh decision.

  ---

• 2013 (6) TMI 51
  

  Service Tax dispute - territorial jurisdiction of high court - Import of services - levy of service tax u/s 66A - reverse charge - held that:- What can be culled out from various pronouncements of the Supreme Court is that one of the most important considerations so far as the aspect of territorial jurisdiction is concerned, is to ascertain, as to whether the facts pleaded have any bearing with the lis or the dispute involved in the case. In the present case, what we find is that the registered office of the petitioner is at Mumbai, and the show-cause notice was also received at the Mumbai office. All queries were answered before the Commissioner of Service Tax at Mumbai. Levy of Service Tax under Section 66A of the Finance Act, 1994 has also been challenged in the High Court of Bombay. Thus, according to us, no part of cause of action can be said to have arisen within the territorial jurisdiction of this High Court.

  In our view, whether the diamonds imported were received at Mumbai or Surat by itself would not be conclusive factor for determining territorial jurisdiction of the High Court. Because by merely receiving consignment at a particular place by itself will not confer jurisdiction to the Court of that place where the consignment is received. This is not such a factor or circumstance which by itself will confer jurisdiction to the Court.

  Each and every fact pleaded in the Writ Petition does not ipso facto lead to the conclusion that those facts give rise to a cause of action which the Court’s territorial jurisdiction unless those facts pleaded are such which have a nexus or relevance with the lis or dispute involved in the case. The facts which have no bearing with the lis or the dispute involved in the case, do not give rise to a cause of action so as to confer territorial jurisdiction on the Court concerned. The territorial jurisdiction must be decided on the facts pleaded in the petition, the truth or otherwise of the averment made in the petition being immaterial. To confer jurisdiction on a Court even if a part of the cause of action arises within its jurisdiction, it is sufficient. It is purely a question of fact.

  The preliminary objection as raised by the respondents as regard territorial jurisdiction of this High Court deserves to be sustained. - Decided against the assessee.

  ---

• 2013 (6) TMI 30
  

  Works contract - Condonation of delay - CESTAT observed that the Doctor in question is a skin specialist and therefore, the medical certificate issued by him for the person suffering from Hepatitis, is mis-conceived and therefore, there is no explanation for condonation of delay and accordingly, the application was dismissed by the CESTAT.

  Held that:- The Doctor attached to the petitioner-company gave medical advise to the General Manager and he gives treatment to the employees of the petitioner-company, and he has given a Medical Certificate for taking rest to the General Manager for the ailment of Hepatatis. The CESTAT not being an expert in examining that Certificate, took a view that the said certificate cannot be accepted and therefore, the reasoning given by the CESTAT in dismissing the condonation of delay application is not justifiable.

  Delay condoned - CESTAT is at liberty to take further course in the appeal filed by the petitioner-assessee. - Decided in favor of assessee.

  ---

• 2013 (6) TMI 27
  

  Rate of service tax - rate applicable as on the date of service rendered or date on which payment is received - held that:- issue is already settled by the Tribunal where it was held that the rate of tax applicable is rate applicable on the date of providing taxable service.

  ---

• 2013 (6) TMI 26
  

  Non compliance of or pre-deposit ordered by commissioner (appeals) - utilization of the cenvat credit for the discharge of service tax liability on the GTA services. - held that:- since the first appellate authority has not decided the order on merits, we are precluded from considering the merits and disposing the appeal. - matter remanded back to the first appellate authority to reconsider the issue afresh and pass an order on merits without insisting any amounts as pre-deposit.

  ---

• 2013 (6) TMI 25
  

  Extension of time for pre-deposit - matter pending before high court - held that:- In answer to a query from the bench, the counsel is not sure whether their appeal against our Stay Order has been admitted by the Hon’ble High Court or not. No copy of any record of proceedings of the Hon’ble High Court has been produced either. The extended period of 2 weeks expired a week ago. In the meanwhile, the appellant could have taken steps for obtaining stay of operation of our direction for pre-deposit. The present prayer of the appellants counsel, in this scenario, does not appear to be acceptable.

  The appellant wants to evade the mandate of Section 35F of the Central Excise Act as applicable to their service tax appeal. - the appeal dismissed for non compliance - decided against the assessee.

  ---

• 2013 (6) TMI 24
  

  GTA - exemption - general declaration of the transporter - held that:- regarding giving the general declaration for obtaining abatement of 75% as per Notification No.32/2004-ST dated 03/12/2004, the matter under dispute was settled by the Honble High Court in the case of Cadila Pharmaceuticals Ltd. [2013 (1) TMI 353 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT] where no general declaration was given, hence Service Tax liability along with interest is required to be paid by the appellant. - though demand of service tax confirmed, penalties waived.

  ---

1 ....34567