Home Case Index All Cases Service Tax 2014 2014 2014 (2) Service Tax - 2014 (2) 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 141 to 160 of 233 Records

• 2014 (2) TMI 478 - CESTAT CHENNAI
  

  Waiver of pre-deposit of tax - Interest under Section 75 - Penalties under Section 76, 77 & 78 - Man-power Recruitment or Supply Agency Service - Held that:- Assessee already deposited partial amount - Therefore assessee directed to make remaining deposit - Decided against assessee.

  ---

• 2014 (2) TMI 477 - CESTAT BANGALORE
  

  Waiver of pre deposit - Valuation - GTA service - certain inward & outward freight charges directly paid to owners of trucks which were used for transportation of goods were not included in the taxable value of GTA service. - Held that:- Following decision of Commissioner of Central Excise & Guntur Vs Kanakadurga Agro Oil Products (Pvt.) Ltd. [2009 (3) TMI 130 - CESTAT, BANGLORE] - Stay granted.

  ---

• 2014 (2) TMI 440 - CESTAT CHENNAI
  

  Condonation of Delay - deemed service of order - appeal filed after initiation of recovery proceedings - Held that:- order-in-Appeal dated 18.07.12 was delivered by Regd. A/D, which was returned back as undelivered as per postal remarks. Further, that the order was served on the Ld. Advocate on 01.08.2012. Furthermore, the order was displayed in the notice board as required under the law.

  A perusal of Section 37C (a) indicates that in case the decision is tendered to the person or his authorised agent, the same shall be deemed to be served in accordance with the Act. In the present case, the Advocate of the appellant who is authorised agent within the meaning of Section 37C, being present on the date of the order, the service of the order shall be deemed to be made to the authorised agent on the same date.

  Ld. Advocate received the order dated 1.8.2012 and also informed the applicant in the month of November, 2012, to file appeal.

  The date of communication of the order on 01.08.2012 to the Ld. Advocate would be treated as the date of receipt of the Order. The applicant had not taken any initiative despite the advise of the Ld. Advocate. In our considered view, there is a gross negligence and inaction on the part of the applicant for delay in filing the appeal. - Delay not condoned.

  ---

• 2014 (2) TMI 439 - CESTAT NEW DELHI
  

  Export of services - marketing of foreign Principal’s products in India - Rule 3(1)(iii) of the Export of Service Rules, 2005 - Held that:- Since in this case, the respondents clients to whom the service has been provided are located outside India and the same has been used by them for their business, the first two conditions of Rule 3(1) read with Rule 3(2) are satisfied. The other condition regarding export of service prescribed in Rule 3(2) is also satisfied inasmuch as payment of this service has been received in convertible foreign exchange - Decided in favor of assessee.

  ---

• 2014 (2) TMI 438 - CESTAT CHENNAI
  

  Adjustment of service tax under Rule 6(3) - excess payment of service tax due to refused / cancelled of policies - taxable service which is not provided either wholly or partially for any reason - Held that:- . For deciding this case the question whether refunds reached only up to intermediary and not to the person who actually took the policy is a relevant fact on which clarity is required. The issue does not seem to be deliberated upon and decided by the Tribunal in order dated 26-06-12. [2012 (9) TMI 772 - CESTAT, CHENNAI] - Matter remanded back for de-novo adjudication.

  ---

• 2014 (2) TMI 437 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD
  

  Renting of immovable properties - waiver of penalty u/s 80 - Held that:- provisions of Section 80(2) of the Finance Act, 1994 which was inserted w.e.f . 28.05.2012 has been interpreted by the lower authorities is being effective from that date and any payment made prior to that date is not eligible to get the benefit. - the said amendment of Section 80 of the Finance Act, 1994 could be applicable to the payment made by assessee even prior to 28.05.2012, as the spirit of the law is to not to penalize the assesses, but had defaulted the payment of service tax of renting immovable property, due to ratio of judgment which held field during the relevant period. - penalty waived.

  ---

• 2014 (2) TMI 436 - CESTAT BANGALORE
  

  Management, maintenance or repair service - erection, commissioning or installation service - services being provided to Central Power Distribution Company of Andhra Pradesh and other State distribution companies - Held that:- in view of retrospective exemption vide Notification No. 45/2010-ST dt. 20/07/2010, the service tax liability of the petitioner for the several taxable services provided to electricity distribution companies of Andhra Pradesh during 01/04/2004 to 30/11/2009, stands eclipsed. - Demand set aside - Decided in favor of assessee.

  ---

• 2014 (2) TMI 413 - CESTAT CHENNAI
  

  Waiver of pre-deposit - Demand of tax - Whether the applicant is liable to pay service tax on receipt of IATA commission from various airlines for the disputed period - Held that:- there is no proof of payment of the tax and the documents were not produced before the lower authorities Therefore, the payment already made cannot be accepted as deposit - applicant is directed to pre-deposit 50% of the tax demanded - Conditional stay granted.

  ---

• 2014 (2) TMI 412 - CESTAT CHENNAI
  

  Validity of credit taken - Cenvat credit availed on Input Service Distributors – Proportionate distribution made or not – Held that:- Following Eveready Industries India Ltd. Versus CCE [2013 (12) TMI 1378 - CESTAT CHENNAI] - proportionment done by the applicant is correct - there appears to be calculation error in the quantification of the demand of tax - the applicant directed to deposit a sum of Rupees Ten lakhs as pre-deposits – upon such submission rest of the duty to be stayed till the disposal – Partial stay granted.

  ---

• 2014 (2) TMI 411 - CESTAT BANGALORE
  

  Waiver of pre-deposit - Abatement Benefit of Notification No. 1/2006 - ‘Erection, Commissioning and Installation Service – service provided by the assesse to telecom operators by way of fabrication and installation of telecom towers – the assesse paid in cash claiming abatement to the extent of 67% of the total value under Notification No. 1/2006 - Whether the benefit of abatement under the Notification No. 1/2006 could be claimed by the assessee – Held that:- The assesse was prima facie liable to pay the entire amount of service tax demanded u/s 11D of the Central Excise Act - Assesse reversed the CENVAT credit thereby qualifying themselves for the benefit of abatement - After claiming such abatement they paid the amount towards the demand - the plea of limitation as well as the plea of financial hardships had also been considered. - stay granted partly.

  ---

• 2014 (2) TMI 410 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD
  

  Waiver of pre-deposit - Renting of immovable property service - Held that:- Appellant in this case has already deposited an amount of by depositing Rs.72.22 lakhs as against the confirmed demand of Rs.87.67 lakhs, we consider the said amount as enough deposit to hear and dispose the appeal. Accordingly, application for the waiver of pre-deposit of the balance amounts involved is allowed and recovery thereof stayed till the disposal of appeal - Stay granted.

  ---

• 2014 (2) TMI 409 - CESTAT CHENNAI
  

  Waiver of pre-deposit - application for modification of stay order - Royalty charges - Intellectual Property Right Services - Whether applicant is liable to pay service tax on royalty charges paid to foreign company as service recipient under Intellectual Property Right Services - Held that:- Prima facie, it appears from the record that applicant paid royalty to the foreign company. no royalty payment was made by applicant has been considered in the stay order - Extension for period of compliance granted - Decided partly in favour of assessee.

  ---

• 2014 (2) TMI 401 - CHHATTISGARH HIGH COURT
  

  Effect of introduction of Section 71A of the Finance Act, 2003 - Liability to file return is cast on the providers of such services only under Section 71A - Held that:- It is a settled principle of law that in order to examine as to whether the law down by the Supreme Court in a particular case is applicable to the facts of the case or not, what is first required to be seen is the facts of case in hand and then, the law has to be applied with a view to find out as to whether the factual issues can be decided in favour of the assessee or in favour of the Revenue. So long as therefore facts are not appreciated, mere quoting of the law would not suffice - we are constrained to allow this appeal and set aside the impugned order passed by the Tribunal. The appeal is accordingly remanded to the Tribunal for its decision on merits - Following decision of COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, MEERUT-II Versus LH. SUGAR FACTORIES LTD. [2005 (7) TMI 106 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] - Decided in favour of Revenue.

  ---

• 2014 (2) TMI 394 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
  

  Waiver of pre-deposit - Classification - Extended period of limiation - Change in the opinion of Audit Wing - whether service tax is chargeable under the head 'Cargo Handling Service' even in respect of consideration received for transportation of goods in barges from a mothership to the jetty known as barging and transport of goods from one minor port to another - Held that:- appellant has a strong prima facie case with regard to the limitation in view of the fact that as late as in February 2008, the audit wing of the Department carried out a detailed examination of the appellant's activities including barging and directed the appellant to pay service taxes under the head 'Port Services'. Thus, the department itself was of the view that the activity of barging is not classifiable under the head 'Cargo Handling Service'. However, all of a sudden for the first time in its show cause notice dated October, 2008, the above service was sought to be classifiable under the head 'Cargo Handling Service' - amount of pre-deposit reduced to that extent.

  ---

• 2014 (2) TMI 393 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
  

  Constitutional validity of levy of service tax on construction services - Section 65(90a) and Section 65(105)(zzzz) of the Finance Act, 1994, as amended by Finance Act, 2007 - Held that:- The said issue was considered by the Full Bench of the Delhi High court in Home Solutions Retails (India) Ltd., v. Union of India [2011 (9) TMI 46 - DELHI HIGH COURT] - The provisions, namely, Section 65(105)(zzzz) and Section 66 of the Finance Act, 1994 and as amended by the Finance Act, 2010, are intra vires the Constitution of India. - Decided against the assessee.

  ---

• 2014 (2) TMI 392 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
  

  Waiver of pre-deposit - CESTAT ordered to deposit major portion of demand - Levy of service tax on works contract - Held that:- The condition as to pre-deposit of the entire amount involved would certainly put heavy burden on the assessee. Whatever may be the justification in enacting such a provision, the remedy of appeal for a citizen cannot be made so dearer, nor can it be kept beyond the reach of an assessee. Indiscriminate denial of the power of waiver would result in a situation where an aggrieved party would be indirectly told "pay or perish". Just as levy of taxes is an attribute of sovereign power, adjudication of disputes is equally an important attribute of the same species.

  The only difference is while the former partakes the character of the right of the sovereign Government, the latter is in the form of its duty. Unless it is tempered with an element of reasonableness, the adjudicatory mechanism is prone to be just an eye-wash - stay order modified to allow stay to the extent 50% of demand.

  ---

• 2014 (2) TMI 391 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
  

  Classification - Original Research Activities and Sponsored Research Activities - Scientific and Technical Consultancy Services - Held that:- Tribunal has allowed the appeal of the respondent relying upon the judgment in Central Power Research Institute [2006 (5) TMI 26 - CESTAT, BANGALORE] without discussing the facts of the present case and no finding has been given whether the respondent is a service provider or not in order to give benefit of the judgment in Central Power Research Institute. - order setaside and remanded back for reconsideration by the Tribunal afresh

  ---

• 2014 (2) TMI 388 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD
  

  Waiver of pre deposit - Penalties under Sections 76, 77 & 78 - Service tax liability not discharged - Port services - Transportation of coal cargo - Held that:- appellant, is the owner of the barges, which ply between mother ship and the shore and versa, carrying cargo. It is the also undisputed that the appellant had hired out these harges to M/s Shreeji Shipping and other firms for doing the activities - appellant had, in fact, charged M/s Shreeji Shipping and other firms an amount as a consideration, based upon the quantity of goods loaded/unloaded in their barges - appellant s barges are utilized for movement of cargo from ship to shore and vice versa and that the appellant is charging the consideration per tonnage of the goods hauled - appellant had not made out a prima facie case for complete waiver of pre-deposit of amount involved - Conditional stay granted.

  ---

• 2014 (2) TMI 387 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD
  

  Eligibility to avail cenvat credit - Service tax rendered for laying the pipelines for drawing of water from a source – Waiver of Pre-deposit – Held that:- The services would be eligible for cenvat credit as the water which transported is used in manufacturing pharmaceutical goods - the appellant has already deposited the entire amount of service tax liability, the amount is enough deposit to hear and dispose the appeal – The detention memo is set aside and lower authorities are directed to withdraw the detention memo and handover the possession of machinery to appellant - the appellant has made out a case for the waiver of pre-deposit of interest and penalties - Rest of the amount to be waived till the disposal – Stay granted.

  ---

• 2014 (2) TMI 386 - CESTAT CHENNAI
  

  Duty demand on the land owners shares of construction - revenue was of the view that assesse had not furnished any evidence to establish any difference in specification / quality between the construction provided to the land owners and others - Held that:- Assesse failed to produce the evidence in support of their contention and the Commissioner was justified to proceed on the basis of comparable prices – Commissioner was justified to proceed on the basis of comparable prices and confirmed the demand accordingly – they were eligible for benefit of 67% abatement even the work’s contract benefit was denied – Assesse had not produced the cost of construction as required under Service Tax (Determination of Value) Rules, 2006.

  Waiver of pre deposit – assesse failed to make out a prima facie case – 75lakhs were ordered to be submitted – stay granted partly.

  ---

1 ....456789101112