Home Case Index All Cases Service Tax 2014 2014 2014 (9) Service Tax - 2014 (9) 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 161 to 166 of 166 Records

• 2014 (9) TMI 38
  

  Cenvat Credit - capital goods or not - being tower parts, green shelter, printers and office chairs - immovable property - tower would qualify as “part” or “component” or “accessory” of the capital goods i.e. antenna or not - Held that:- It is clear that each of the component had independent functions and hence, they cannot be treated and classified as single unit. It is clear that all capital goods are not eligible for credit and only those relatable to the output services would be eligible for credit. The goods in question in any case cannot be held to be capital goods for the purpose of CENVAT credit as they are neither components, spares and accessories of goods falling under any of the chapters or headings of the Central Excise Tariff Schedule as specified in sub-clause (i) of the definition of capital goods. Hence a combined reading of sub-clause (a)(A) (i) and (iii) and sub-rule (2) indicates that only the category of goods in Rule 2(a)(A) falling under clause (i) and (iii) used for providing output services can only qualify as capital goods and none other.

  Admittedly the goods in question namely the tower and part thereof, the PFB and the printers do not fall within the definition of capital goods and hence the appellants cannot claim the credit of duty paid on these items.

  Whether inputs or not - Held that:- A plain reading of the definition of input indicates that in the present context, clause (i) of Rule 2 (k) may not be of relevance as same pertains to manufacturing activity and pertains to goods used in relation to manufacture of final product or any other purpose within the factory of production. Sub- clause (ii) has been referred to as relevant by the appellant as the same pertains to goods except light diesel oil, high speed diesel oil, motor spirit, commonly known as petrol and motor vehicles, used for providing any output service. Tower and parts thereof are fastened and are fixed to the earth and after their erection become immovable and therefore cannot be goods.

  Whether tower is an accessory of antenna - held that:- It would be misconceived and absurd to accept that tower is a part of antenna. An accessory or a part of any goods would necessarily mean such accessory or part which would be utilized to make the goods a finished product or such articles which would go into the composition of another article. The towers are structures fastened to the earth on which the antennas are installed and hence cannot be considered to be an accessory or part of the antenna.

  The subject items are neither capital goods under Rule 2(a) nor inputs under Rule 2(k) of the Credit Rules and hence CENVAT credit of the duty paid thereon was not admissible to the appellants. - Decided against the assesssee.

  ---

• 2014 (9) TMI 37
  

  Waiver of pre-deposit - tribunal dismissed the appeal for non compliance of stay order - Construction of residential complexes and commercial complexes - ownership - undue hardship - Held that:- the order of the Tribunal directing payment of pre-deposit has been duly complied with by the appellant, though belatedly. - The word undue adds something more than just hardship. It means an excessive hardship or a hardship greater than the circumstances warrant - appeals restored to the file of the Tribunal - The Tribunal shall take up the appeals in the usual course and dispose of the same on merits and in accordance with law - decided in favor of asssessee.

  ---

• 2014 (9) TMI 36
  

  Condonation of delay - revenue appeal - delay of 98 days - it is evident that the issue has been taken by the appellant before the Board for its approval to file appeal and as a consequence, delay occasioned - Held that:- The facts and circumstances of the present case clearly justifies condonation of delay of 98 days, in any event, 48 days from the date the Board granted its approval, whereinafter some time is required for preparation and filing of the appeal. The Tribunal should have taken a pragmatic view and should have condoned the delay in filing the appeal on the facts and circumstances of the case, which the Tribunal failed to do. Therefore, this Court is of the considered view that the impugned order passed by the Tribunal is liable to be set aside. - delay condoned - matter restored before tribunal - decided in favor of revenue.

  ---

• 2014 (9) TMI 35
  

  Cenvat Credit - capital goods, input and input services used for making of immovable property, which is further put to renting of immovable property service - Held that:- The definition of ‘inputs’ is limited to the definition of ‘input services’ as can be seen from the definitions. Credit of duty paid on inputs is available when the inputs are used for providing an ‘output service’. Therefore, there is a need to say that the inputs have been used for providing an ‘output service’. In the case of ‘input service’, the definition includes input services used by a provider of taxable service for providing an output service. Therefore the definition of input and input service are pari-materia as far as the service providers are concerned.

  That being the position, the decision of the Hon’ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh in the case of CCE, VISAKHAPATNAM-II Versus SAI SAHMITA STORAGES (P) LTD.[2011 (2) TMI 400 HC)] would be applicable to the present case. In that case also, the Hon’ble High Court took the view that without use of cement and TMT bars for construction of warehouse assessee could not have provided ‘storage and warehousing service’. In this case also, without utilizing the service, mall could not have been constructed and therefore the renting of immovable property would not have been possible

  ---

• 2014 (9) TMI 34
  

  Waiver of pre-deposit of service tax - charge for excess baggage - transportation of goods by air service - Held that:- As the Co-ordinate bench of Bombay in the case of Kingfisher Training & Aviation Services Ltd. (2010 (9) TMI 327 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI) waived the pre-deposit of dues which were confirmed on the same ground. Respectfully, following the above decision, the pre-deposit of dues are waived and recovery of the same is stayed during the pendency of the appeals - Stay granted.

  ---

• 2014 (9) TMI 33
  

  Maintenance or Repair Service - Held that:- no service tax can be levied on services, which are under the category of Management, Maintenance or Repair of roads for the period from 16.6.2005 to 26.7.2009. In view of the above, impugned order is set aside - Decided in favour of assessee.

  ---

1 ....56789