|
Advanced Search Options
Service Tax - Case Laws
Showing 1 to 20 of 133 Records
-
2015 (6) TMI 1245
Utilization of CENVAT Credit for payment of pre-deposit - HELD THAT:- There is no dispute that the appellant paid the amount through Cenvat account. There is no such provision denying the payment of pre-deposit through Cenvat account.
Application disposed off.
-
2015 (6) TMI 1170
Rebate claim - rejection on the ground that in the FIRCs, name of the company was mentioned as ‘Affiliated Computer Services of’ whereas the name of the exporter was Affiliated Computer Services of India Pvt. Ltd. - Held that:- Apparently the lower authorities felt that there could be another unit by name ‘Affiliated Computer Services’ and another company by name ‘Affiliated Computer Services of India Pvt. Ltd’. - During the hearing, my attention was also drawn to the certificate wherein the name of the company is shown as ‘Affiliated Computer Services of’. Obviously this has happened because the number of characters provided for the first line ended at this level.
In view of the fact that the appellants have produced the certificates from the bank and Chartered Accountant and further rebate claims, in any case, to be sanctioned by the original authority - the matter can be remanded to the original authority to verify the documents and sanction the rebate claims - appeal allowed by way of remand.
-
2015 (6) TMI 1152
Imposition of Penalty - Held that: - conduct of the respondent does not appear to be questionable in view of cooperation rendered to the Department to discharge not only tax liability but also interest liability - penalty not justified - appeal dismissed - decided against Revenue.
-
2015 (6) TMI 1144
Since the matter is covered by the Division Bench judgment, this appeal is also disposed of directing that the judgment in Writ Appeal No.558 of 2006 will govern the parties in this appeal also - Writ appeal disposed off.
-
2015 (6) TMI 1143
CENVAT credit - inputs/capital goods - telecom towers/erection of towers - case of appellant is that the disputed service falls under definition of input service - Held that: - It is an admitted fact on record that the appellant is a service tax assessee, duly registered under the Service Tax statute for providing the telecom services. Installation of telecom towers are for the purpose of providing the output service by the appellant - Since the disputed services have been used by the appellant for erection of the telecom towers, which is used for providing the taxable output service, it will not be appropriate to deny the Cenvat benefit - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.
-
2015 (6) TMI 1141
Payment of tax with interest before issuance of SCN - succession of business - amalgamation - Held that: - it is an admitted fact that all the transactions were recorded in the Books of Account maintained by the appellant - it is admitted fact that the factory with respect to which the demand under reverse charges was made has been succeeded by the present appellant, during the period in question, amalgamation proceedings was going on before the Hon'ble High Court and the final order was passed only on 2.7.2009 and as such during such transit period, it cannot be said that the appellant have deliberately defaulted in discharging the Service Tax - the appellant have deposited the tax and as such they are entitled to the benefit under the provisions of Section 73(3) of the Finance Act, 1994.
The appellant was entitled to the benefit under the provisions of Section 73(3) and no show-cause notice is required to be issued - penalty set aside - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.
-
2015 (6) TMI 1137
Maintainability of appeal - pre-deposit - non-compliance - Held that: - the appeal is dismissed for want of compliance under section 35F of the Central Excise Act, 1944.
-
2015 (6) TMI 1136
CENVAT credit - duty paying documents - grievance of Revenue are that the Bank certificates do not contain any serial number, address of the party and are not in the form of invoice as required under the provisions of Rule 4A of the Service Tax Rules, 1994 - Held that: - Manner of preparation of invoice by the service provider is contained in Rule 4A of the Service Tax Rules, 1994. The proviso appended thereto specifies that in case of invoices issued by the banking company, the rigour of the said rule shall not be applicable, inasmuch as, in absence of mention of serial number and address of the service receiver, credit should be allowed - the documents in the present case issued by the bankers are in conformity with the proviso contained in Rule 4A ibid read with Rule 9(2) ibid.
With regard to distribution of credit by the head office of appellant, the said office has not availed the Cenvat credit of service tax paid by the bankers, and thus, there was no requirement for obtaining registration certificate as service distributor.
Appeal dismissed - decided against Revenue.
-
2015 (6) TMI 1132
Voluntary Compliance Entitlement Scheme - the impugned order did not advert to the petitioner's returns to hold that, the petitioner is not entitled for the benefit of 2013 Voluntary Compliance Scheme - Held that: - essentially it is a pure disputed question of fact. The benefit of Voluntary Compliance Scheme would depend upon the nature of the returns submitted by the petitioner. In that view of the matter, a probe into facts and aspects is necessary. Hence, this Court do not find any reason to justify an interference - The petitioner is relegated to their appellate remedy - declining jurisdiction, this writ petition is disposed of.
-
2015 (6) TMI 1091
Denial of benefit of Cenvat credit - outdoor catering services - services provided in the factory for employees of the factory - whether the assessee can utilise the cenvat credit facilities in respect of outdoor catering services, provided in the factory for its employees and outward freight service as input service? - Held that: - In an identical circumstance, this Court dealt with the issue with regard to outdoor catering service, in the case of CCE V. Ultratech Cement Ltd. [2010 (10) TMI 13 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT], where it was held that all services used in relation to the business of manufacturing the final product are covered under the definition of `input service' and in the present case, the outdoor catering services being integrally connected with the business of the manufacture of cement, credit of service tax paid out on catering services has been rightly allowed by the Tribunal.
Outward freight charges - whether the services availed by a manufacturer for outward transportation of final products from the place of removal should be treated as an input service in terms of Rule 2 (1) (ii) of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004? - Held that: - reliance placed on the decision of the case of CCE V. ABB Ltd., Bangalore [2011 (3) TMI 248 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT], where it was held that By notification No.10/2008-C.E.(N.T.) dated 1.3.2008, the words 'clearance of final products upto the place of removal' were substituted in the place of the words 'clearance of final products from the place of removal'. The intention of the legislature is thus manifest. Till such amendment, the words 'clearance from the place of removal' included transportation charges from the place of removal till it reached the destination, namely the customer. Therefore, the said input service was included in the early part of the definition 2(1)(ii). – Credit of service tax paid on outward transportation allowed prior to 1.4.2008.
Appeal disposed off - decided in favor of assessee.
-
2015 (6) TMI 1078
Cenvat credit - appellant took credit of service tax paid on the services received from two Architect firms during October, 2003 - in both the invoices on the basis of which credit was taken, service tax amount had not been shown separately - Held that:- even though several arguments were advanced as to the eligibility of appellant on the ground that the amount was treated as cum-tax amount by both the service receiver and service provider and tax had been promptly paid by both the service providers, yet, in view of the requirement in Rule 5(1) of Cenvat Credit Rules, which says that tax amount paid has to be indicated, I cannot go against the provisions of Rule and therefore, I do not consider it worthwhile to discuss all the submissions made with regard to this issue.
Invokation of extended period of limitation - in both the cases, the appellant had paid the amount and subsequently they have produced certificates from the service providers that they had paid tax promptly - Held that:- in the case of one service provider, the final invoice copy was also produced which showed service tax amount paid separately and this amount is more than ₹ 74,000/-. This would show that the claim of appellant that both the service provider and the service receiver believed that the amount originally invoiced was cum-tax amount and in one case, the final invoice was also issued confirming the bona fide belief on behalf of both the service receiver and the service provider. In such a situation, when the appellant had taken reasonable steps to ensure that the service providers had paid the tax which has been proved by subsequent certificates issued and also had followed the provisions relating to the steps to be taken by them to ensure that the tax has been paid, it cannot be said that there was intention to evade service tax or suppress the fact of availment of Cenvat credit based on invoices which did not show service tax separately. Therefore, invocation of extended period to demand the amount of credit taken cannot be sustained. - Decided partly in favour of appellant
-
2015 (6) TMI 1075
Valuation - includability - value of diesel and explosives while performing the site formation services - Held that:- the issue is covered by the Tribunal's decision in the case of M/s. S.V. Engineering Constructions Versus C.C.E. & S.T., Guntur [2013 (12) TMI 1533 - CESTAT BANGALORE] and also by Final Order No.27218/2013 dated 30.12.2013 wherein it was held that the same is not to be added. Therefore, by followinf the same, we dispense with the condition of pre-deposit. - Decided in favour of appellant with consequential relief
-
2015 (6) TMI 1071
Recovery proceedings - appellant contended that initial order passed by the adjudicating authority was so patent and loudly obtrusive, it was liable to be interfered with by the Commissioner (Appeals) and even if the Commissioner (Appeals) did not have any statutory power to condone the delay, the High Court, in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, ought to interfere.
Held that:- All relevant facts have been taken into consideration and by no stretch of imagination it can be held that the said order is so patent and loudly obtrusive, which will warrant an interference by the writ Court. That apart and in any event, there is no infirmity of reasoning in respect of the subsequent order passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), Appeal–I, Kolkata dated 7th October, 2013 and finally, the order passed by the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, East Regional Bench, Kolkata dated 4th December, 2014, affirming the order of Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), Appeal-I, Kolkata, while referring to and relying upon section 85 of the Finance Act, 1994 and the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of M/s. Singh Enterprises (2007 (12) TMI 11 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA).
Petition dismissed - Decided against the assessee.
-
2015 (6) TMI 1057
Levy of service tax on life insurance coverage to the employees of the State Government - By the judgment under appeal, learned single Judge held that the life insurance provided pursuant to Rules 22A and 22B of Part I KSR is not exigible for service tax. It is this judgment which is under challenge before us. - Held that:- Reading of the CBEC circular shows that it has been clarified by the CBDT that activities performed by sovereign/ public authorities under the provisions of law are in the nature of statutory obligations which are fulfilled in accordance with law, as the functions, according to the Board, are mandatory and statutory functions and are not in the nature of service to any particular individual for any consideration. On this basis, it is clarified that such activities performed under the provisions of law do not constitute taxable service and that no service tax is leviable on such activities.
As we have already seen, the respondent department is providing personal insurance and group insurance in pursuance of the statutory mandate as contained in Rules 22A and 22B of Part I KSR. In other words, the insurance provided is a mandatory statutory function discharged by a State Government Department. Such an activity is not a taxable service for the purpose of service tax in the light of the circular issued by the Central Board of Customs and Excise referred to above. This, therefore, means that the view taken by the learned single Judge does not merit interference.
-
2015 (6) TMI 1041
Demand of Service tax and imposition of penalty - Section 77 and 78 read with Section 80 of the Finance Act, 1994 - International Courier Service - neither service tax paid nor ST-3 returns filed even after collecting from their customers - reason for non-payment is that the courier/cargo industry was facing severe recession - Held that:- it is to be noted that the appellant's act of not paying tax, collected from their clients, to the Revenue is totally unjustified. The facts would not have come to light but for the visit by the department officials. In these circumstances, the imposition of penalty is wholly justified. However, in this case the penalty from ₹ 16 lakhs was reduced to ₹ 8,00,660/-. This is not a case where the tax was not paid on account of any interpretative issue of law. This is a case where the tax was collected but not paid to the exchequer. This warrants no leniency. Accordingly, the impugned order is upheld. - Decided against the appellant
-
2015 (6) TMI 1035
Eligibility of refund claim - Notification No.5/2006 read with Rule 5 of CENVAT Credit Rules - Non-taxability of output services - Held that:- the Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka in the case of mPortal India Wireless Solutions (P) Ltd. Vs. CST, Bangalore [2011 (9) TMI 450 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT] has already held that the refund cannot be rejected on the ground of non-taxability of output service and eligibility for refund of the CENVAT credit availed on the input services which could not be utilised.
Period of limitation - Eligibility of refund claim - Notification No.5/2006 read with Rule 5 of CENVAT Credit Rules - Held that:- by following the decision of tribunal in the case of Apotex Research Pvt. Ltd. & others V. CC, Bangalore-CUS [2015 (3) TMI 346 - CESTAT BANGALORE], in the case of service received from abroad, the date of payment of consideration would be the relevant date for deciding the limitation. Therefore, impugned order is set aside. Matter remanded back
-
2015 (6) TMI 1034
Liability to pay service tax - Technical inspection and certification agency service received from abroad - Held that:- there is no finding that appellants are not using the service for business or commerce. it can be said that service is partly performed in India. Since the report is received in India and the testing is done on the goods sent by the appellant. However, because of the exclusion as per Rule 3(3), prima facie, we find that service tax may not be liable to be paid. In view of the above, requirement of pre-deposit is waived and stay against recovery is granted during the pendency of appeal. - Decided in favour of appellant
-
2015 (6) TMI 1033
Waiver of pre-deposit - Period of limitation - Section 85(3A) of the Finance Act, 1994 - Appellant contended that the Commissioner (Appeals) reckoned the date of the primary order (28-2-2013) for the purpose of computing the delay but the period for filing the appeal should be reckoned from the date when its rectification of mistake application was disposed of and if so done, its appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) was not time-barred.
Held that:- the ROM application filed by the appellant under Section 74 of the 1994 Act was disposed of by the Assistant Commissioner only on 19-6-2013 and therefore the time for filing of appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) should be reckoned from that date, and if so done the appeal filed by the appellant remains within the period prescribed in Section 85 of the 1994 Act. - Pre-deposit waived of and matter remanded back
-
2015 (6) TMI 1032
Valuation - Includability - Total cost of services - Services of Air-conditioning and Electricity - Appellant contended that while supplying the said services, he uses diluted water as also diesel, the cost of which should be excluded from the service, inasmuch as the same would amount to sale of goods but as per Department diesel and diluted water is not being supplied by the appellant directly to the customers and as such it is not a case of sale of goods.
Held that:- the diluted water and diesel are not the goods being supplied by the appellant to their customers so as to exclude the cost of the same but are the raw materials being used by them for providing the final services. As such taking into account the overall facts and circumstances, we are of the view that the appellant should be put to some terms of deposit, as a condition of hearing of their appeal and direct them to deposit an amount of ₹ 5,00,000,00/- (Rupees Five Crores only) within a period of 12 weeks from today.
-
2015 (6) TMI 1031
Liability of Service tax - Services received from foreign service providers - Intellectual Property Services, Management Consultancy Services and Business Auxiliary Services - Amount paid towards service tax by reversal of Cenvat credit - Appellant submitted that an amount paid by utilizing Cenvat credit related to the period prior to April, 2006 and the demand for payment of service tax on output services has been dropped for this period, so, the question of recovery of Cenvat credit utilized for payment of service tax does not arise.
Held that:- Commissioner has clearly held that for the period prior to 18-4-2006, there is no liability for payment of Service Tax on services received from abroad. Therefore, whether they paid the amount by utilizing Cenvat credit or by cash is irrelevant. Strictly going by law, when the demand for Service Tax on output services is dropped, the amount paid would be refundable. The only question is whether the appellant is required to pay the amount because it is inadmissible. So, in the absence of any allegation that the credit was not admissible and in view of the specific allegation that the credit could not be utilized for payment of Service Tax for output services, the Commissioner, as submitted by the appellant, has clearly traveled beyond the show cause notice. Moreover, in the absence of any finding that the credit is inadmissible, it cannot be recovered also. Therefore, the order of the Commissioner directing to pay an amount is not sustainable and accordingly, set aside. - Decided in favour of appellant
........
|
