|
Advanced Search Options
Service Tax - Case Laws
Showing 1 to 20 of 146 Records
-
2013 (7) TMI 1186
... ...
... ... ..... appellants to Military Engineering Service is covered by Section 98 of the Finance Act 2012 which gives retrospective exemption for maintenance and repair service provided in respect of defence buildings also. Therefore, appeals filed by the appellant are allowed with consequential relief, if any. (Pronounced and dictated in open court)
-
2013 (7) TMI 1164
... ...
... ... ..... ortant information. 7. At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioner would make a submission that a lenient view be taken on account of the fact that the result of the Computer Proficiency Test has not been declared and the petitioner be permitted to appear in such test by way of a special chance. Even such prayer cannot be accepted. In every process of selection a certain time frame is stipulated. Such time frame would apply in relation to the various stages of the selection process. It is in the interest of the candidates as also the recruiting agency for such time frame to be strictly adhered to. Accepting the prayer of the petitioner would amount to permitting a deviation from the advertised time frame and would thereby introduce an element of arbitrariness. Accepting such prayer would also mean that a selection process would never be finalized. For the reasons recorded above, I find no merit in the petition and the same is, accordingly, dismissed. Petition dismissed.
-
2013 (7) TMI 1112
... ...
... ... ..... oadly, in our view the service tax Rules do not prescribe the method of doing any business or maintaining account. The approach of the authorities should facilitate smooth conduct of business by reducing manual work for every assesse if they arrange to do so. 12. Thus, we are in agreement with Final Order No.6767,668/12, dated 12.06.2012 passed by Tribunal in Appeal Nos.ST/413/2010 and ST/13/2012. We follow the same order and remit this matter also to the adjudicating authority, after setting aside the impugned order, for de-novo adjudication considering the observations of the Tribunal in that order and this order. We make it clear that this order is not a bar to passing any appropriate order in accordance with law if any revenue loss is demonstrable. Needless to say that such evidence should be disclosed to the appellant and they should be given an opportunity to present their defense. 12. Stay application and appeal are disposed of. (Dictated and pronounced in open court)
-
2013 (7) TMI 1097
Taxability of treasury services being provided by Bank where government does not have its own treasury and maintaining currency chests on behalf of Reserve Bank of India (RBI) - the decision in the case of M/s. Canara Bank Versus CST, Bangalore [2012 (6) TMI 274 - CESTAT, AHMEDABAD] contested - Held that: - delay condoned - issue notice.
-
2013 (7) TMI 1079
... ...
... ... ..... Cenvat Credit of ₹ 49,82,605/- availed, being the credit of service tax paid on Business Auxiliary Services (Sales Agents Commission), treating the said service as not falling under Input Services, is legally tenable. The learned Tribunal, while deciding the said question has followed the decision of a Coordinate Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Metro Shoes Pvt. Ltd. v. C.C.E., Mumbai reported in 2008 (10) S.T.R. 382 (Tri.-Mumbai) and it was observed by the Tribunal that the issue involved therein is squarely covered by the aforesaid decision of the Tribunal. There is no statement or averment that the decision rendered in the case of Metro Shoes Pvt. Ltd., has been appealed against before any forum or it has been upset by any forum. Under the circumstances, we think that the issue has now become settled between the parties and it is no longer res integra. Therefore, we do not like to admit the appeal to upset the settled issue. Accordingly, we dismiss this appeal.
-
2013 (7) TMI 1073
... ...
... ... ..... rgued that their Account Department has raised a query while accepting the development charges that it cannot be accepted without adding the amount of service tax upon it. However, the fact remains that the demand of development charges was raised in the month of May, 2012, whereas demand of service tax at first point of time on 22-3-2013 i.e. after the order passed in Letters Patent Appeal on 20-3-2013. The fact is clear that the service charges cannot be levied retrospectively and, therefore, we do not see any reason or substance in the averments and arguments by the applicant that since Union Government has decided to levy the development charges from 1-7-2012, the appellant is liable to pay service charges. The fact remains that demand of development charges was in May, 2012 whereas service tax was levied from July, 2012 only. 5. In view of above facts and circumstances, we do not see any reason or substance in such application and, therefore, the same is dismissed.
-
2013 (7) TMI 1056
... ...
... ... ..... as already been settled. Therefore, we grant waiver of pre-deposit and take up the appeal itself for decision. 7. We find there is no dispute that the work undertaken by the appellant is ‘maintenance and repair service’ of lifts/elevators installed in Naval buildings and the lifts/elevators are immovable property according to the decision of the Hon’ble High Court of Bombay in the case of OTIS Elevators Company (India) Ltd. (supra). Therefore, the services rendered to immovable property under dispute are not liable to Service Tax at all prior to 16-6-2005. Subsequent to 16-6-2005, exemption from Service Tax levy for services of maintenance service rendered to non-commercial buildings of Government has been granted retrospectively. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed with consequential relief, if any, to the appellant. 8. In the result, COD application, stay application and appeal get disposed of as above. (Pronounced and dictated in the open Court)
-
2013 (7) TMI 1055
Classification of Services - Business auxiliary services or Information Technology Service?- Whether assessees are liable to service tax under Business Auxiliary Service on the amount of commission and other remuneration received by eBIZ during the period 1-7-2003 to 31-3-2007?
Held that:- On going through Agreement between eBIZ assessee and also activities undertaken by the assessee, there is no doubt that assessees are involved in promotion or marketing of services of eBIZ and getting commission for the eBIZ for the same - as per explanation given under Section 65(19) Information Technology Service means any service in relation to designing, developing or maintaining of computer software or computerised data processing or system networking - the activities of the assessees are not covered under any of the activity defined under Information Technology Service - the finding of the Commissioner (Appeals) that assessees are providing BAS and not Information Technology Service is upheld.
Benefit of N/N. 13/2003, dated 1-3-2003 - Held that:- From going through the copy of the agreement between the assessee and M/s. eBIZ it is noticed that the activity of the assessees are more than the commission agent and moreover the assessee is also getting the commission in this case for purchase of goods not by the assessee but by his orbit of the associates. Also this notification applies to sale and purchase of goods whereas the present assessees are also engaged in promoting the sale and purchase of the services - benefit of notification cannot be allowed.
Extended period of limitation - Held that:- The assessees failed to get themselves registered with the service tax department and they did not make any payment of service tax within the prescribed time and did not file the prescribed returns in time as required under the service tax law - extended period rightly invoked.
Penalties - Held that:- The benefit of penalty equal to 25% of the tax amount is also not applicable to the assessees as they have not paid 25% of the tax amount as penalty within one month from the date of the order - penalty u/s 76 and 78 also upheld.
However, the benefit of cum-tax value is available to the assessees
Appeal allowed in part.
-
2013 (7) TMI 1053
... ...
... ... ..... on this account. 6. We find that for short payment of Service Tax, the applicant has already paid excess amount for the earlier period and the same has been adjusted for the impugned period. Earlier excess payment of Service Tax is sufficient for requirement of pre-deposit. Accordingly, on this count, we waive the requirement of pre-deposit. 7. For incentive receipts from the service recipient on account of achieving targets, we find that the applicants are entitled for exemption under Notification No. 22/97. Therefore, on that account also they have made out a case for waiver of pre-deposit. 8. In these terms, we direct the applicant to make a pre-deposit of ₹ 9,00,000/- (rupees nine lakhs only) within a period of eight weeks and report compliance on 10-10-2013. On such compliance, the requirement of pre-deposit of the balance amount of Service Tax, interest and penalty is stayed during the pendency of the appeal. (Pronounced and dictated in open Court)
-
2013 (7) TMI 1052
... ...
... ... ..... s noted that none had appeared on behalf of the appellant nor was there proof of deposit. The matter is listed for compliance today and neither the appellant has appeared nor is compliance report filed. 2. In the circumstances, the appeal stands rejected. The Revenue is at liberty to take appropriate steps for realisation of the adjudicated liability.
-
2013 (7) TMI 1037
... ...
... ... ..... . The balance amount of about ₹ 82 lakhs (approx.) demand was raised on Cargo Handling Service. But the applicant took the stand that it is a GTA Service and tax was paid by the consignee. It is undisputed that the applicant could not place any evidence in support of their contention. Similarly, the demand of tax of ₹ 9,83,980/- it is seen from the adjudication order, the applicant failed to produce any documents for verification. 3. After considering the submissions of both sides, we find that the applicant failed to make out a prima facie case for waiver of pre-deposit of entire amount of tax, penalty and interest. Accordingly, we direct the applicant to deposit ₹ 25,00,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five lakhs only) within eight weeks from day. Upon deposit of the same, the balance adjudged dues shall remain waived and recovery thereof stayed till the pendency of the appeal. To report compliance on 20th September, 2013. (Dictated and pronounced in open Court)
-
2013 (7) TMI 984
... ...
... ... ..... s a sporting event . Therefore, the appellants are not liable to pay service tax. 4. On the other hand the learned A.R. appearing on behalf of the Revenue reiterated the impugned order. 5. Heard both sides. 6. Considered the submissions. After going through the decision cited by the learned counsel in the case of M/s Hero Honda Motors Ltd., (supra), we find that an identical issue came before this Tribunal and in that case, this Tribunal has arrived at a decision on the activity of sponsorship in this matter is only a game of cricket in IPL which is a sporting event. Therefore, the appellants were not held liable to pay service tax under the category of Sponsorship Service. The issue is no more res integra in view of the cited decision herein above. 7. Therefore, we hold that appellants are not liable to pay service tax in this case also. Accordingly the impugned order is set aside. Appeal is allowed with consequential relief if any. (Pronounced & dictated in open court)
-
2013 (7) TMI 982
Delay of more than two years in filling appeal - the decision in the case of Gopinath And Sharma Versus CESTAT, CCE, Commissioner of Service Tax and Addl. Commissioner [2013 (4) TMI 69 - MADRAS HIGH COURT], contested - The SLP dismissed - decided against petitioner.
-
2013 (7) TMI 946
... ...
... ... ..... make a pre-deposit of ₹ 30,000/- along with interest due vide order dated 17-9-2012 on or before 25-9-2012 and report compliance on 27-9-2012. Since the said direction was not complied with, the appeal was dismissed. Hence, the appellant is before us. 3. We have gone through the agreement which is termed as Franchise Agreement. As per the agreement, the appellant has rented out their premises to M/s. Amalgamated Bean Coffee Trading Co. Ltd. along with certain facilities, for which the appellant received the consideration. Prima facie the activity undertaken by the appellant is one of renting of immovable property and not Business Auxiliary Services. In view of the above, we are of the view that the matter has to go back to the lower appellate authority for reconsideration of the entire issue on merits without insisting on any pre-deposit. 4. Thus, the appeal is allowed by way of remand. Stay application is also disposed of. (Dictated and pronounced in Court)
-
2013 (7) TMI 945
... ...
... ... ..... t the interpretation of the Central Board of Excise and Customs will be binding upon the Revenue. (2) Whether the Tribunal is right in holding that the respondents did not provide any taxable service though they did manufacture an excisable product? But for the above explanation, the GTA service so received by the respondents would have been covered under the definition of “input service” under Rule 2(1) of Cenvat Credit Rules. By virtue of the explanation, it shall be deemed to be “output service” even after deletion of the explanation given at Rule 2(p) read with definition given at Rule 2(q) and (r) convey similar meaning. 2. In similar set of circumstances, this Court in C.M.A. No. 894 of 2008 by order dated 5-7-2013, dismissed the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed by the Revenue. In the light of the order passed in C.M.A. No. 894 of 2008, rejecting the Revenue’s appeal, the above Civil Miscellaneous Appeals are also dismissed. No costs.
-
2013 (7) TMI 920
CENVAT credit - GTA service - input service or not? - interpretation of statute - Board Circular No. 345/4/2005-TRU, dated 3-10-2005 - Whether the Tribunal was right in holding that the respondents did not provide any taxable service though they did manufacture an excisable product? - Held that: - this court in the case of The Commissioner of Central Excise Versus M/s. Cheran Spinners Limited [2013 (8) TMI 215 - MADRAS HIGH COURT], has held that the recipient of GTA services, by virtue of the Explanation to Rule 2(p) of the CENVAT Credit Rules, as a provider of output service, was entitled to all benefits that a person providing input service would be entitled to in the matter of CENVAT credit adjustment, and the appeal of Revenue was rejected - following the same in the present case, the apppeal is dismissed - decided in favor of assessee.
-
2013 (7) TMI 911
Classification of services - whether the sub-agent of an IATA Agent, who books the tickets of Air for customers and gets commission from IATA Agent, is rendering services under the category of ‘Business Auxiliary Services’ or under the category of ‘Air Travel Agent’?
-
2013 (7) TMI 910
... ...
... ... ..... the administrative and sales functions. There is no evidence adduced by the Revenue to show that the appellant has rendered Management Consultancy Services to M/s SSAL. 5.2 Therefore, in view of the decisions of this Tribunal in the case of Basti Sugar Ltd. and Glaxo Smithkline (supra), we are of the view that the appellant had rendered executory service in terms of the agreement entered by the appellant with M/s SSAL. There is nothing on record to show that the appellant rendered any advice or consultancy service to M/s SSAL. The appeal of the Revenue in the Glaxo Simthkline’s case has also been dismissed by the Hon'ble High Court. In view of this, we are of the considered view that the service rendered by the appellant does not merit classification under ‘Management Consultancy Services’. Consequently the impugned order is not sustainable in law and accordingly, we set aside the same. 6. Thus, the appeal is allowed. (Dictated and pronounced in Court)
-
2013 (7) TMI 908
Waiver of pre deposit - Held that:- Having broadly seen the facts of the case and the subsidy component being received by the appellant from Larsen & Toubro Limited, for providing subsidized food articles to the employees of Larsen & Toubro Limited, the interests of justice would be served if the appellant is required to pre-deposit 40% of the service tax demand of ₹ 5,67,93,185/- confirmed against the appellant by the Commissioner (TAR), Mumbai within six weeks from today. On such deposit, the recovery of balance amounts will be stayed and the appeal will be taken up by the Tribunal for final disposal on merits in its turn - Appellant that the amount as directed by this Court will be deposited with the respondent authorities within six weeks from today, we direct that the order of freezing/attachment of the bank account of the appellant by the respondent authorities shall stand vacated forthwith - Appeal disposed of.
-
2013 (7) TMI 862
Valuation - Gross value - Reimbursable expenses received by the assessee need not be added to the taxable value related to clearing and forwarding agents service - Rule 6(8) of Service Tax Rules, 1994 stipulates that Gross amount of remuneration or commission should be the taxable value in relation to the services provided by a Clearing and Forwarding Agent – Held that:- Various expenditure includible in the taxable value of Carrying and Forwarding service were reimbursed by the principals on the basis of actuals – Relying upon the judgment in the case of Sri Sastha Agencies Pvt Ltd., Vs. Asst. Commissioner reported in 2006(11)TMI 193- CESTAT, BANGALORE, wherein it is held that no element other than remuneration received by a Clearing & Forwarding agent from their principal was to be included in the taxable value of the service. In the instant case, it is difficult to hold that the gross amount of remuneration/commission would nevertheless include expenditure incurred by the assessee providing the services; that all incidental charges for running of the business would also form part of the remuneration or Commission (by whatever name called). The phrase "by whatever name called" must necessarily have some link or reference or nature to the receipt of remuneration or commission. Thus, if a receipt is for reimbursing the expenditure incurred for the purpose, the mere act of reimbursement, per se, would not justify the contention of the Revenue that the same, having the character of the remuneration or commission, deserves to be included in the sum amount of remuneration / Commission - Rejecting the Revenue's contention – Decided in favor of Assessee.
........
|
