|
Advanced Search Options
Service Tax - Case Laws
Showing 201 to 220 of 233 Records
-
2014 (2) TMI 196 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD
Waiver of pre deposit - Job work - business auxiliary service - manufacturing bulk drugs on job work basis. - Held that:- the invoices which has been raised by the appellant on the principle, talks about the receipt of compensation charges and processing of the goods on behalf of the client, and they were under the impression that the activity falls under the category of Business Auxiliary Service but the activity in which they are engaged, since amount to manufacture, they are exempted from the Central Excise duty. - prima-facie appellant has made out a case for the waiver of pre-deposit of amounts involved - Stay granted.
-
2014 (2) TMI 195 - CESTAT NEW DELHI
Condonation od delay - Copy of adjudication order not received - Proof of service - Held that:- On an inter active application of the provisions of sub-section (1) and (2) of Section 37(C) the conclusion is compelling that where Revenue seeks to serve an adjudication order by sending it through by registered post, proof of service/proof of delivery of the communication on the assessee is an integral component of facts relevant to an inference as to the date of communication. The ld. Commissioner (Appeals) has inferred, from the fact of the adjudication order having been sent by registered post that there was a delivery of the registered post to the assessee. This inference suffers from a factual vacuum viz. proof of delivery - appellate order rejecting the appeal on the ground of bar of limitation is unsustainable - matter remanded to the Commissioner (Appeals), Jaipur for consideration of the appellant's appeal on merits - Decided in favour of assessee.
-
2014 (2) TMI 194 - CESTAT BANGALORE
Waiver of pre deposit - Demand of service tax - erection, commissioning or installation service - management, maintenance or repair service - Held that:- appellant were executing works awarded by the main contractor and that the latter had paid service tax. Where they could prove this claim, the adjudicating authority granted the benefit. No further proof is forthcoming and therefore, prima facie, the appellant cannot be absolved of tax liability on the above ground. There is no plea of financial hardships in this application. But there is a plea of limitation against the impugned demand - Assessee directed to make a pre deposit - Conditional stay granted.
-
2014 (2) TMI 149 - CESTAT BANGALORE
Works contract service - laying of pipelines - 'Erection, Commissioning or Installation Service' or 'Commercial or Industrial Construction Service' prior to 01/06/2007 - Held that:- works executed by the petitioner more appropriately fall within sub-clause (b) of Section 65(25b) of the Act and are therefore CICS and not ECIS as concluded by the learned adjudicating authority. Section 65(25b) clearly limits the scope of the taxable service defined therein to a service provided in relation to works which are used primarily in commerce and industry or intended for commerce and industry. It is the unequivocal case of the petitioner that all these works were executed for the State Government, for irrigation projects and for supply of drinking water and not for commerce or industry and therefore there is no liability to service tax. The adjudication order did not advert to this contention of the petitioner, since the order proceeded on the premise that services provided prior to 01/06/2007 require to be classified as ECIS and since Section 65(39a) does not restrict the definition of the taxable service defined therein to services provided in relation to commerce or industry only, service tax is leviable.
On the basis of the analysis in the adjudication order, it is not very clear whether all works and the associated services executed or provided by the petitioner prior or subsequent to 01/07/2007 were in relation to laying of pipeline or whether a few of these were outside the scope of construction of pipeline and therefore might fall within sub-clause (e) of Section 65(105)(zzzza) of the Act. We, therefore, proceed at this stage of the matter on the basis of the assertion on behalf of the petitioner that all the works pertain to laying/construction of pipeline falling within Section 65(105)(zzzza)/(b) and not sub-clause (e) of the said provision and the observations in adjudication order, that these are pipeline construction works.
Since under sub-clause (b) of Section 65(105)(zzzza) of the Act (for the period subsequent to 01/06/2007), inter alia construction of pipeline primarily for the purposes of commerce or industry falls within the ambit of the definition of works contract service and services provided by the petitioner under the several agreements with the State Government were for irrigation or drinking water supply purposes, we are prima facie of the view that these not being commercial or industrial purposes are excluded from exigibility to service tax, as falling outside the purview of the taxable service - Decided in favour of assessee.
-
2014 (2) TMI 148 - CESTAT BANGALORE
Demand raised before 01-06-2007 - Waiver of pre deposit of tax - Erection, commissioning or installation service - Service rendered to Delhi Metro Rail Corporation Ltd. - Held that:- demand under the erection, commissioning or installation service is not sustainable and the demand under the works contract service prior to 01/06/2007 is also not sustainable - applicant has made out a prima facie case for waiver of pre deposit of entire amount of tax along with interest and penalty and the stay of recovery is granted - Stay granted.
-
2014 (2) TMI 147 - CESTAT MUMBAI
Imposition of penalty - Commissioner reduced the amount of penalty - Held that:- appellant is not disputing the tax liability. However, he is seeking abatement towards the tax from the total consideration received; however, there is no documentary evidence available on record to show that the amount received by the appellant was cum tax. In the absence of such a documentary evidence it is difficult to accept the submission of the appellant that consideration received should be treated as cum tax.
Discretion was available to the appellate authority only within the minimum value and the maximum value and there was no discretion given to the authority under the law for reducing the penalty - reduction in penalty by the lower authority below the minimum prescribed is not sustainable in law. Consequently, the appellant would be liable to pay penalty equal to the service tax demand confirmed in the order of the adjudicating authority - Decided in favour of Revenue.
-
2014 (2) TMI 146 - CESTAT MUMBAI
Demand of service tax - Imposition of equivalent penalty - Appellant submits that there is a duplication of demands - Steamer Agent Service - Held that:- what the appellant has undertaken is booking/canvassing of cargo. Therefore, the activity undertaken by the appellant squarely falls within the definition of steamer agent service - booking of cargo space would be liable to service tax and accordingly pre-deposit of the duty demand pertaining to normal period of limitation is ordered - Following decision of Greenwich Meridian Logistic (I) Pvt. [2013 (9) TMI 260 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT] - Conditional stay granted.
-
2014 (2) TMI 145 - CESTAT MUMBAI
Waiver of pre deposit - Renting of immovable property service - Address of the property for which they have availed services is not entered to registration certificate - Held that:- It can be seen at the final hearing whether this premise are required to be entered in the registration certificate or not. Prima facie I am of the view that stay can be granted to them. Accordingly, I waive the requirement of pre-deposit of disputed amount and stay recovery thereof during the pendency of the appeal - Stay granted.
-
2014 (2) TMI 144 - CESTAT MUMBAI
Denial of refund of service tax - Unjust enrichment - Online information and data access service - Held that:- appellant has not provided any service at all. When service is not provided, question of service tax does not arise. The appellant has filed a refund claim of the service tax paid. Therefore, question of unjust enrichment does not arise - impugned order is set aside as bar of unjust enrichment is not applicable - Decided in favour of assessee.
-
2014 (2) TMI 143 - CESTAT CALCUTTA
Waiver of pre-deposit of Service Tax - Penalty under Section 78 - construction services - Held that:- Applicant was allowed sufficient time to place the proof of payment of Service Tax by the principal contractor M/s.Larsen & Toubro Ltd. which they failed to do. Prima facie, we also find that the Applicant was registered with the Service Tax department for the disputed period and discharged Service Tax when services were rendered by them as a contractor, but failed to pay Service Tax when they rendered service as a sub-contractor without disclosing these facts to the department. Hence, prima facie it cannot be said that the entire demand is barred by limitation. In these; circumstances, we are of the view that the Applicant could not able to make out a prima facie case for total waiver of pre-deposit of dues adjudged. No financial hardship has been pleaded - Conditional stay granted.
-
2014 (2) TMI 142 - CESTAT CHENNAI
Waiver of pre-deposit of tax - Demand of service tax - Club or Association Services - Held that:- prima facie the applicant is liable to pay tax on interest on installment sales and room rentals and directed to deposit 10% of the tax - Upon such deposit, pre-deposit of the balance amount of tax, interest and penalty are waived and recovery thereof stayed during the pendency of the appeal - Conditional stay granted.
-
2014 (2) TMI 141 - CESTAT CHENNAI
Rectification of mistake - Business Auxiliary Service - Ocean Freight Services - Held that:- demand is confirmed under the head ‘Business Support Service’ and therefore the order requires correction - date of hearing it is noted as 24.7.2012. He submits that the case was heard on 26.7.2012. We have checked the cause list as also proceedings recorded in the file which show that stay petition was heard on 26.7.2012 and decided on that date. Accordingly, the date of hearing is corrected as 26.7.2012 instead of 24.7.2012 as recorded in the stay order. Further, since the order was dictated and pronounced on 26.7.2012, the stay order number itself is revised as 656-657/12 dt. 26.7.12 - Rectification done.
-
2014 (2) TMI 140 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD
Cenvat credit on service tax –Input service used for both dutiable as well as exempted goods - Waiver of Pre-deposit – Held that:- The appellant having reversed the entire amount of Service Tax credit availed on common input services which are used for manufacturing of dutiable as well as exempted products - Prima facie, the appellant can be said to have not availed Service Tax credit on the common input services - this reversal is enough deposit to hear and dispose the appeals – Pre-deposits waived till the disposal – Partial Stay granted.
-
2014 (2) TMI 100 - CESTAT MUMBAI
Demand of service tax - Recipient of GTA service - Appellant had paid the service tax to the provider of GTA service and the provider has paid to the Revenue and the appellant has availed credit of the same - Held that:- there is no dispute regarding payment of service tax by the provider of GTA service. Once the amount of service tax is accepted by the Revenue from the provider of GTA service, it cannot be again demanded from the recipient of the GTA service - Decided in favour of assessee.
-
2014 (2) TMI 99 - CESTAT MUMBAI
Business Auxiliary Service - Job Work - Activity of powder coating and chrome plating for various motor vehicle parts received from the manufacture on job works basis - Held that:- Appellants are undertaking the activity of powder coating and chrome plating for various motor vehicle parts and was working notification No.214/86-CE. The appellants are receiving the motor vehicle parts from principle manufacturer and after undertaking the activity of powder coating cleared to the principal manufacturer and the same goods are used in the manufacture of excisable goods cleared on payment of duty. As the processes undertaken by the appellant amounts to manufacture as per the decision relied upon by the appellant as the same is part of manufacturing process. Therefore, we find that appellants are not liable to pay service tax under the category of Business Auxiliary Service - Decided in favour of assessee.
-
2014 (2) TMI 98 - CESTAT NEW DELHI (LB)
Classification of service - Whether the table space provided by the Automobile dealers to financial institutions fall under Business Auxiliary service or not - Held that:- no uniform principle emerges as would guide determination of whether a particular transaction involving an interface between an automobile dealer and bank or financial institution would per se amount to BAS. The identification of the transaction and its appropriate classification as the taxable BAS or otherwise must clearly depend upon a careful analysis of the relevant transactional documents. Only such scrutiny and analysis would ensure rational classification of the transaction.
Where mere space is provided along with furniture for facilitating accommodation of representatives of financial institutions in the premises of an automobile dealer and consideration is received for that singular activity, such consideration may perhaps constitute a rent for the provision of space and associated amenities. Such restricted relationship/transaction may not amount to BAS. If on the other hand, the transactional documents and other evidence on record indicates a substantial activity falling within the contours of any of the integers of the definition of BAS, spelt out in Section 65 (19), then it would be legitimate to conclude that BAS is provided - The appeal stand remitted to the appropriate Bench in the West Zonal Bench of this Tribunal for adjudication on merits - Decided in favour of assessee.
-
2014 (2) TMI 97 - CESTAT NEW DELHI
Denial of benefit of Cenvat credit - Service Tax paid by way of supplementary invoice – Held that:- Rule 9(1) (f) specifies an invoice, a bill or challans issued by the provider of invoices, service documents on which credit can be availed - The supplementary invoices as also invoice are valid for the purpose of availment of credit - the provision of Rule 9(1) (b) debars taking of credit if supplementary invoices are issued by manufacturer or importer on account of duty having become recoverable, on account of any levy or short-levy by reasons of fraud, collusion, or any wilful mis-statement or suppression of facts etc. Relying upon JSW Steel Ltd. Vs. CCE, Salem [2008 (9) TMI 74 - CESTAT, CHENNAI ] – Pre-deposits waived till the disposal – Stay granted.
-
2014 (2) TMI 96 - CESTAT CHENNAI
Waiver of pre-deposit of tax - Construction of residential complex service and commercial or industrial construction service - Held that:- Demand was raised without giving consideration of abatement of 67% under Notification No.1/2006-ST - Appellant directed to make a pre deposit - Conditional stay granted.
-
2014 (2) TMI 95 - CESTAT NEW DELHI
Waiver of pre deposit - Imposition of eqivalent amount of penalty u/s 76, 77 & 78 - Tribunal order predeposit - High Court directed to deposit Rs 1 Crore within 4 weeks - Supreme Court also dismissed application and ordered that in case the petitioner complies with the order of the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) within three weeks from today, the compliance shall be treated as within time and the CESTAT shall hear the appeal on merits - Held that:- Petitioner has deposited only Rs 1 Crore - order of the Supreme Court dt.04.03.2013, which directed compliance with the order of this Tribunal dt. 26.06.2012 has not been complied with. There is therefore failure of compliance of the order of this Tribunal as mandated by the Supreme Court and consequent and failure of pre-deposit - Since the order of this Tribunal dt. 26.06.2012 directed to be complied with by the order of the Supreme Court dt. 04.03.2013 has not been complied with - Therefore decided against assessee.
-
2014 (2) TMI 94 - CESTAT NEW DELHI
Review of order - Order to make pre deposit - Demand under Cargo Handling - Held that:- Whether the appellant was un-loading and loading to the wagons and rendered a taxable service is a matter to be determined in the substantive appeal. Since a reasoned order was passed, re-consideration of the same on the ground that the several facts mentioned in the Show Cause Notice were not considered properly by the Tribunal, is an invitation to review. There is no merit in the application as there is no jurisdictional or an error apparent on the record discernable - Since assessee failed to make pre deposit - Appeal rejected.
....
|
