|
Advanced Search Options
Service Tax - Case Laws
Showing 181 to 200 of 233 Records
-
2014 (2) TMI 292 - CESTAT CHENNAI
Stay - Duty Demand – Interest and Penalty u/s 78 – Assesse was engaged in the business of providing commercial and industrial construction service and also construction of residential complex service – Held that:- The service would be liable to tax depending on the date of providing service and not based on the date of receiving payment or consideration in the form of land – The contention that the huge amount of black money that exchanges hands in land deals and since the so called free construction was done for a party who made land available and not to a totally independent party cannot be accepted.
Service tax payable on the owners share of the residential complex – Revenue was of the view that the sale value of land was an artificial value recognized by the State authorities for the purpose of registration and was not the real value of the land - Construction undertaken for the land owner involves service rendered by the assesse to the land owner – relying upon LCS City Makers Pvt. Ltd. Vs CST, Chennai [2012 (6) TMI 363 - CESTAT, CHENNAI ].
Part of the service to the land owners were received in the form of land prior to 01-06-2007 follows – the contention that they started receiving consideration for the service only after 01-06-2007 does not appear to be correct - If liability accrued prior to 01-06-07, the assesse may not be eligible to scheme notified from 01-06-2007 – a person who did not promptly pay tax can be put on a more advantageous position as compared to a person who complied with law cannot be held eligible for benefit of the new scheme as per Rule 3 (3) of Works Contract Rules - a harmonious construction may imply situations - If the demand was confirmed under the construction of complex service as proposed by Revenue as against works contract service adopted by assesse, the assesse may be eligible for the benefit of abatement under Notification No.1/06-ST with suitable adjustment for reversal of CENVAT credit taken.
Waivers of pre-deposit – 1crore were ordered to be paid as pre deposit – upon such submission rest of the duty to be waived till the final disposal.
-
2014 (2) TMI 291 - CESTAT CHENNAI
Waiver of predeposit - General Insurance Service - Denial of CENVAT CRedit - Credit was denied on the ground that the applicant availed credit on the basis of invoices issued by Authorized Service Stations were not in the name of the applicant but were in the name of vehicle owners - Held that:- Tribunal has already granted unconditional stay in M/s CHOLAMANDALAM MS GENERAL INSURANCE CO LTD. Versus COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, LTU, CHENNAI [2013 (2) TMI 132 - CESTAT CHENNAI] - However assessee is directed to make to pre deposit - Conditional stay granted.
-
2014 (2) TMI 290 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD
Waiver of pre deposit - Penalty u/s 76 & 78 - Service tax liability discharged before the issuance of show cause notice - Held that:- appellant herein had collected the service tax leviable on the services rendered by them from their clients but not deposited with the authorities. Appellant had deposited the amount, during the scrutiny of records admitting that they collected the same. At this juncture, we find that the appellant having not deposited the amount collected by them, needs to be put to some condition to hear and dispose the appeal - Conditional stay granted.
-
2014 (2) TMI 289 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD
Waiver of pre-deposit of service tax - Availment of CENVAT Credit - Service tax paid on courier charges and on the legal and provisional charges - Held that:- services also include processing of printing of list for EGM etc. - The cenvat credit of the service tax paid by the service provider is an arguable one which can be considered only at the time of final disposal of appeal. Accordingly, we find that the appellant should be put to some condition to hear and dispose the appeal - Conditional stay granted.
-
2014 (2) TMI 250 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Waiver of pre deposit - Classification - renting of immovable property or business support services - tribunal granted stay ff 50% of service tax demand - Held that:- there was a bonafide belief on the part of the appellant that services being rendered by them was not taxable prior to 1 June 2007. The respondent revenue has accepted the service tax under the head “renting of immovable property” till date without any objection. It was only after two years after the appellant had commenced paying service tax under the category of renting immovable property that a show cause notice demanding service tax from 1 June 2006 to 31 May 2007 has been issued on 22 October 2009. This non payment of service tax by the appellant for the period 1 May 2006 to 31 May 2007 in the present facts could prima facie be considered to be on a bonafide understanding that it is not liable to service tax - Pre deposit reduced to 25% of service tax demand - Decided partly in favour of assessee.
-
2014 (2) TMI 249 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Reversal of CENVAT Credit - recovery of demand - Held that:- notice issued insisting that the Petitioner should pay the amounts adjudicated upon by order without waiting for the statutory period of three months provided to enable the filing of an appeal and stay application to the Tribunal is over. This is contrary to the circular dated 1 January 2013 issued by CBEC. The impugned communications, to say the least, is high handed. The statute has advisedly provided a period of three months to an assessee to file an appeal before the appellate authority and also obtain a stay. This is with a view to enable the assessee to seek proper advice and considered opinion on the adjudication order before taking a decision and then challenging the adjudication order in appeal proceedings.
The officers of Respondent Revenue would do well to realize that their job is much more than merely collecting the tax. They are officers of the State, administering the Finance Act, 1994 and fairness in approach to the tax payers and acting in accordance with the Rule of Law is a sine-qua-non in discharge of all its functions - Notice quashed - Decided in favour of assessee.
-
2014 (2) TMI 248 - CESTAT BANGALORE
Demand of service tax - Benefit of Notification No. 45/2010-ST dated 20.7.2010 - Exemption from levy of service tax on all taxable services relating to transmission and distribution of electricity - Revenue denied benefit due to lack of nexus between services rendered by the respondent with distribution of electricity - Held that:- nature of activity (supply of manpower for construction of substation for the purpose of distribution of electricity) and examining the provisions of notification, we are, at this stage, unable to disagree with the above finding of the Commissioner (Appeals). Prima facie, there was a nexus between the service in question and distribution of electricity by the above company. This apart, the appellate Commissioner’s order does not appear to be executable - Stay denied.
-
2014 (2) TMI 247 - CESTAT NEW DELHI
Condonation of delay in filing appeal before Commissioner (Appeals) - Demand of service tax - Imposition of penalty - Bar of limitation - Held that:- Commissioner (Appeals) has rightly considered the facts and has clearly examined the issue of time bar and has come to a conclusion that appeal has been filed after the required time limit - appellate authority have no authority to allow appeal presented beyond the said period. Accordingly appeal in violation of Section 85(3) is liable to be dismissed - Following decision of Singh Enterprises vs. CCE, Jamshedpur [2007 (12) TMI 11 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] - Decided agaisnt assessee.
-
2014 (2) TMI 245 - CESTAT BANGALORE
Waiver of pre deposit - Demand of service tax - Works contrsct - Held that:- appellant, having admitted tax liability to the extent of Rs.10.5 lakhs which they did not care to discharge during the material period, has also an irrefutable penal liability and hence they should make a reasonable pre-deposit against both tax liability and penal liability. In this view of the matter, we direct the appellant to pre-deposit an amount - Conditional stay granted.
-
2014 (2) TMI 244 - CESTAT NEW DELHI
Waiver of pre deposit - Stay of recovery - Demand of service tax - Notification No. 12/2003-ST - Denial of benefit on the ground that the goods/ material in issue were consumed in the taxable service of repair of transformers, defined under Section 65 (64) read with Section 65(105)(zzg) of the Finance Act, 1994 - Held that:- Following decision of Aggarwal Colour Advance Photo System vs. CCE, Bhopal [2011 (8) TMI 291 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI (LB)] - Since in earlier circumstances absolute waiver has already been granted - Therefore, Stay granted.
-
2014 (2) TMI 243 - CESTAT NEW DELHI
Waiver of pre-deposit - Stay of recovery of service tax - Denial of benefit of exemption of Notification No. 12/2003-ST - Denial of benefit on the ground that the goods/ material in issue were consumed in the taxable service of repair of transformers, defined under Section 65 (64) read with Section 65(105)(zzg) of the Finance Act, 1994 - Held that:- Following decision of Aggarwal Colour Advance Photo System vs. CCE, Bhopal [2011 (8) TMI 291 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI (LB)] - Since in earlier circumstances absolute waiver has already been granted - Therefore, Stay granted.
-
2014 (2) TMI 242 - CESTAT NEW DELHI
Demand of service tax - Inclusion or exclusion of value of STG services - Held that:- interests of justice are met by waiver of pre-deposit and grant of stay of all further proceedings pursuant to the impugned order, on condition that the appellant remits 50% of the service tax within eight weeks - Conditional stay granted.
-
2014 (2) TMI 241 - CESTAT NEW DELHI
Waiver of pre-deposit - Stay of recovery of service tax - Denial of benefit of Notification No. 12/2003-ST - goods/ material in issue were consumed in the taxable service of repair of transformers - Held that:- since this Tribunal in identical circumstances had granted absolute waiver of pre-deposit and unconditional stay, we also grant waiver of pre-deposit and stay of all further proceedings pursuant to the impugned order in original, pending disposal of the appeal - Following decision of Aggarwal Colour Advance Photo System vs. CCE, Bhopal [2011 (8) TMI 291 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI (LB)] - Stay granted.
-
2014 (2) TMI 203 - CESTAT KOLKATA
Waiver of pre-deposit of service tax - Penalty u/s 78 - security agency services - Held that:- despite security services, they, rendered other services also, which were not taxable during the relevant period and corresponding invoices also support the said facts. We also find that the applicants have deposited an amount of Rs.9,60,814/- against the confirmed demand. In these circumstances, the applicants are able to make out a prima-facie case for waiver of dues adjudged, accordingly, predeposit of all dues adjudged is waived and its recovery stayed during pendency of the appeal - Stay granted.
-
2014 (2) TMI 202 - CESTAT KOLKATA
Waiver of pre-deposit of service tax - Valuation - Equal amount of penalty imposed under Section 78 - Repairing and maintenance of engines of aircrafts - Whether the components, parts etc. procured by the Ministry of Defence independently and supplied to the applicants involve ‘sale’ under Notification 12/2003-ST dated 20.6.03 read with the definition of ‘sale’ prescribed under Rule 2 (h) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 and accordingly, be excluded from the gross taxable value of service charges - Held that:- in the break-up, the details of the raw materials supplied and its value, have been mentioned. Thus, prima-facie, at this stage, it would be difficult to say that no sale of the materials was involved, hence, fall outside the scope of Notification No.12/2003-ST dated 20.6.03. In these circumstances, the applicants are able to make out a prima-facie case for total waiver of dues adjudged, accordingly, predeposits of dues adjudged in all the cases are waived and its recovery stayed during pendency of the Appeals - Stay granted.
-
2014 (2) TMI 201 - CESTAT KOLKATA
Waiver of pre-deposit of service tax - Penalty under Section 78 - Tour operator services - Held that:- applicants never contested that the services provided by them to M/s Durgapur Steel Plant, were not taxable rather, they admitted their service tax liability, as demanded in the show-cause notice - they had already submitted their bills to M/s DSP for realizing the service tax amount on work-order basis and on receipt they would pay the same. He only requested to take a lenient view while deciding the case since there was no malafide intention at their end - applicants could not make a prima-facie case for total waiver of pre-deposit of dues adjudged against them - Conditional stay granted.
-
2014 (2) TMI 200 - CESTAT KOLKATA
Waiver of pre-deposit of Service Tax - Penalty imposed under Section 78 - Tour Operator Service/Rent-A Cab Operator Scheme and Cargo Handling Service - service tax not collected from the customers - Mistake of law - Held that:- neither in the Show Cause Notice nor in the impugned Order, the amount relating to Tour Operator Service and Cargo Handling Service had been separately mentioned and the respective service taxes were not accordingly demanded. The ld. Advocate disputed the demand of service tax of cargo handling service, as according to him, no such services were rendered by the Applicant during the relevant period - Assessee directed to make pre deposit - Conditional stay granted.
-
2014 (2) TMI 199 - CESTAT KOLKATA
Waiver of pre-deposit of service tax - Availment of CENVAT Credit - Recovery of proportionate cenvat credit of GTA services involved on these iron ore fine and coal fine - Held that:- Revenue claims that since the iron ores were sold as such without being used in the manufacture of products, proportionately the cenvat credit availed on GTA services for bringing iron ore to the factory were required to be reversed under Rule 3 (5) of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 - applicants are able to make out a prima-facie case for total waiver of duty and penalty, hence, pre-deposit of all dues adjudged is waived and its recovery stayed during pendency of the appeal - Following decisions of Commr. of Central Ex., Chandigarh I Vs. Punjab Steels [2010 (7) TMI 252 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT] and Chitrakoot Steel & Power Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commr. of Central Excise, Chennai [2007 (11) TMI 135 - CESTAT, CHENNAI] - Stay granted.
-
2014 (2) TMI 198 - CESTAT CHENNAI
Waiver of pre-deposit of tax - Denial of CENVAT Credit - Held that:- CENVAT credit was denied to the applicants who are engaged in the manufacture of finished leather. They received the services of various foreign commission agents for marketing purposes and paid tax and also availed credit. The demand of Rs.4.48 lakhs was raised denying CENVAT credit under Rule 5 of Taxation of Services (provided from outside India and received in India) Rules, 2006 - applicant is not entitled to avail credit on the tax paid on service rendered by their foreign commission agents - Prima facie, it appears that they have not produced the documents in respect of denial of credit of Rs.1.20 lakhs - Conditional stay granted.
-
2014 (2) TMI 197 - CESTAT BANGALORE
Waiver of pre deposit - Demand of service tax - Management, Maintenance or Repair Service of a National Highway median - Held that:- there is no prima facie case against the demand barring the demand of Rs. 55,96,089/-. In other words, no prima facie case has been made out against demand of service tax and education cesses totaling to approximately Rs. 1.2 crores. In the absence of evidence of financial hardships, the appellant directed to pre-deposit - Conditional stay granted.
....
|
