|
Advanced Search Options
Service Tax - Case Laws
Showing 1 to 20 of 145 Records
-
2016 (1) TMI 1484
Restraint on further action under the Service Tax Act against the writ petitioner unless the above fact is established - requirement to consider the case of ALL ASSAM TEA PLANTATION SECURITY VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM AND ORS. [2002 (4) TMI 995 - GAUHATI HIGH COURT] and BAKHTAWAR SINGH BAL KISHAN VERSUS U.O.I. [1988 (2) TMI 466 - SUPREME COURT] - HELD THAT:- Mr. Poddar, learned Senior Advocate appearing for the writ petitioner-respondent submitted that it was not the intention of the Court that the determination is to be made only in the light of the views expressed in the judgments referred to in the operative part of the order. Therefore, the appeal is disposed of by clarifying that it will be open to the department to decide the issue, in accordance with law.
-
2016 (1) TMI 1481
CENVAT Credit - input services - construction services used in constructions of dormitory - no co-relation between such input services and manufacture/clearance of finished goods as these services are more closely associated to welfare activity - HELD THAT:- The appeal is admitted on substantial question of law.
-
2016 (1) TMI 1428
Tour Operator Services - Appellant had conducted "Outbound Tours" of Haj-Umrah to Makkah and Madina, during the material period and did not discharge the service tax liability on the amounts so collected - HELD THAT:- The appeal is dismissed.
-
2016 (1) TMI 1376
Commercial Training or Coaching service - non-payment of service tax - Held that:- The issue is indeed covered in favor of the assessee by the Delhi High Court judgment in the case of Indian Institute of Aircraft Engineering Vs. Union of India [2013 (5) TMI 592 - DELHI HIGH COURT], where it was held that An educational qualification recognized by law will not cease to be recognized by law merely because for practicing in the field to which the qualification relates, a further examination held by a body regulating that field of practice is to be taken - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.
-
2016 (1) TMI 1362
100% EOU - Refund of CENVAT credit - outdoor catering services - medical insurance services of employees - denial on account of nexus - Held that: - It has to be mentioned that the dispute related to the period April 2010 to June, 2010 during which time the definition of input services was very wide and included any activities relating to business - In a catena of judgments, it is held the credit is available on insurance services and outdoor catering services prior to 01-04-2011 - refund allowed - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.
-
2016 (1) TMI 1320
Condonation of delay - delay of 686 and 387 days in filing the appeals - the decision in the case of M/s VOLKSWAGEN INDIA PVT LTD Versus COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE [2013 (11) TMI 298 - CESTAT MUMBAI] contested - Held that: - application for condonation of delay is dismissed - appeal dismissed.
-
2016 (1) TMI 1311
Commercial or industrial construction service - abatement of 67% under notification 15/2004 ST/notification No. 1/2006-ST - the decision in the case of Cherry Hill Interiors Ltd. Versus C.S. T-Delhi [2015 (9) TMI 161 - CESTAT NEW DELHI] contested, where it was held that benefit of the said notification (no. 12/2003-ST) can be extended only if the appellant satisfies the conditions subject to which the benefit thereunder can be granted - Held that: - the decision in the above case upheld - appeal dismissed.
-
2016 (1) TMI 1272
Construction service/commercial or industrial construction service - construction of building was done for various educational institutions run by a charitable organisation - whether commercial or non-commercial in nature? - Held that: - private educational institutions cannot be said to be non-commercial in nature only because they are run by charitable organisation as that merely implies that the profit earned by such institution has to be ploughed back and used for the objectives of the charitable organisation - there is no allegation of suppression of facts or wilful misstatement with intent to evade payment of service tax - in the present case the entire demand is beyond the normal period of one year and is time barred - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.
-
2016 (1) TMI 1270
Input tax credit - repair and maintenance service - invocation of extended period of limitation - Held that: - Since the facts regarding taking of irregular Cenvat credit was known to the Department and the present SCN was issued by invoking the extended period of limitation, the allegation of fraud, suppression, etc. cannot be levelled, justifying issuance of SCN beyond the period of limitation of one year - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.
-
2016 (1) TMI 1269
Recovery of service tax dues - attachment of bank accounts - Change in the management of the company - It is stated that the present management was not aware of the orders passed against the petitioner-company prior to the takingover of the management and, in fact, the erstwhile management had assured the present management that there were no dues outstanding to any department at the time of transaction.
Held that:- Taking note of the said submission of counsel for the petitioner, I direct that, if the petitioner discharges its liability to respondents 1 to 5 pursuant to Order (Original) No. 7/2011-S.T., dated 27-4-2011 in 10 equal successive monthly instalments commencing from 5-2-2016, then further proceedings for recovery as against the petitioner including further steps pursuant to Ext.P9 shall be kept in abeyance. - The petitioner shall also be permitted to operate the accounts mentioned in Ext.P9 during the period of operation of the stay granted in this judgment.
-
2016 (1) TMI 1221
Maintainability of appeal - monetary limit for filing appeal - Held that: - the amount involved in all these appeals is less than ₹ 10,00,000/- (Rupees Ten Lakhs only) and needs to be summarily dismissed as per the new litigation policy of the Government of India, Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue CBEC Circular No. F.390/Misc./163/2010-JC dated 17.12.2015 as reported by a letter of CBEC dated 01.01.2016 - appeal dismissed.
-
2016 (1) TMI 1198
Interest on refund sanctioned - unjust enrichment - Held that: - Section 11BB of Central Excise Act, 1944 is unambiguously clear that non-sanction of refund within three months of filing of claim will set the ‘interest clock’ ticking. Mere pendency of any appellate / revisionary proceedings cannot justify non-sanction of such refunds. The law does not acknowledge recoveries to any such excuse or loopholes. Section 11BB is intended to ensure accountability on the part of revenue officials. To place the legally provided for interest on the backburner for any reason whatsoever would be tantamount to defying legislative intent.
The tax authorities were determined not to grant the refund to the appellant. Withholding of interest will, therefore, only serve to encourage irresponsibility and non-responsiveness on the part of tax authorities - original authority is directed to release the interest due till date of payment of refund immediately on receipt of this order - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.
-
2016 (1) TMI 1194
CENVAT credit on amount declared under VCES scheme - construction services - Held that: - Discharge of tax liability is a matter of fact that can be, and should have been, verified by the appropriate authorities. A presumption on the basis of a service tax return that could well be erroneous should not stand in the way of acknowledging tax paid whether it has been in accordance with the schedule prescribed in the Finance Act, 1994 and the rules framed thereunder or any special scheme. A plain reading of Rule 6(2) of the VCES 2013 would demonstrate that the restriction on utilisation of CENVAT credit is limited only to the tax dues - The deposits and utilization of credit requires a detailed examination. matter remanded back to examine the documentary proof and restrict the demand thereafter to such amounts as are not covered by the tax paid by deposit or by CENVAT credit utilisation and the amount paid under the VCES - appeal allowed by way of remand.
-
2016 (1) TMI 1192
Refund claim - N/N. 41/2007-ST dated 6th October 2007 - export of iron ore fines - technical testing and analysis services - port services - natural justice - Held that: - It is a well-settled principle of natural justice that proceedings to the detriment of an assessee is not to be undertaken without issue of a notice justifying the proposed detriment and occasioning an opportunity to respond - The violation of principles of natural justice vitiates the proceedings.
Also, the two lower authorities had not examined the several aspects which are crucial to disposal of the refund claim of the appellant, the entire application for refund requires reconsideration - appeal allowed by way of remand.
-
2016 (1) TMI 1191
EON Free Zone - benefit of N/N. 40/2012-ST dated 20th June 2012 - whether services for which tax has been collected along with consideration by the provider have been utilised in connection with the authorized operations for which the competent authority is the Development Commissioner? - Held that: - There is no finding that these are not approved services. The assessment to tax and the exemption provided under N/N. 40/2012-ST merely lays down the procedure for reimbursement of a tax that should not have been collected in the first place. That it was collected is attributable to the caution exercised by the service provider who would rather not tangle with the possible intransigence on the part of service tax officers. No evidence has been produced to show that M/s Mayur Hotels has not rendered ‘outdoor catering service’ or provided catering service outside the zone - there is no ground to warrant interference in the impugned order appeal dismissed - decided against Revenue.
-
2016 (1) TMI 1177
Service tax liability – ‘Dredging Service' - the decision in the case of M/s RELIANCE MICHIGAN (JV) Versus COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, THANE II [2013 (7) TMI 236 CESTAT MUMBAI] contested - Held that: - Having heard learned counsel for the parties, we are not inclined to interfere with the orders impugned in the civil appeals - The civil appeals are, accordingly, dismissed.
-
2016 (1) TMI 1175
Imposition of penalty under Section 78 of the Finance Act, 1994 - levy of tax on commission to foreign agents - reverse charge mechanism - Held that: - the appellant is liable to pay service tax under reverse charge mechanism, therefore, this situation is of revenue neutrality. As the appellant has paid Service Tax, in that circumstance, the penalty is not imposable on the appellant. I further hold that the appellant has not paid the interest for the intervening period, therefore, the appellant is directed to pay interest on Service Tax, if any, for the intervening period within 30 days failing which the appellant is liable to pay penalty under Section 78 of Finance Act, 1994 - appeal disposed off.
-
2016 (1) TMI 1173
Recovery - renting of immovable property service - abatement under N/N. 24/2007-ST dated 22nd May 2007 - adjustment of excess tax paid on account of non-availment of the abatement of property tax - Held that: - the appellant had discharged the property tax liability for the period from 2004-05 onwards till 2008-09 to the extent of ₹ 8,60,74,774/-. It is seen that ₹ 3,99,17,748/- pertains to the year 2008-09 and ₹ 1,34,79,909/- to the year 2007-08 which are the periods after the service was made leviable to tax. It is also seen that the abatement being claimed for the period from October 2008 to March 2009 is to the extent of ₹ 2,35,45,869/- which is well within the limit of the claimable amount for the year 2007-08 and 2008-09. Further the claim for the month of April 2009 amounting to ₹ 39,09,798/- is within the remaining eligible balance after the claim for abatement for the period up to March 2009. No evidence to the contrary has been furnished by Revenue - we find no reason to disallow the abatement claimed by the appellant. The provisions of notification are clear that the property tax proportionate to the period for which the abatement is claimed shall be excluded while computing the gross amount charged for the purpose of levy of service tax. It would appear that excess abatement had not been availed by the appellant - appeal allowed.
-
2016 (1) TMI 1155
Denial of CENVAT credit - provider of output service - utilisation of services of other dealer for labour cost in servicing of vehicles sold by appellant - Rule 2(1) of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 - Held that: - there can be no doubt that appellant renders authorized service station service and business auxiliary service on behalf of M/s Maruti Udyog Ltd. It is therefore, a provider of output service. In the course of discharge of this output service which includes free servicing, it is quite probable that the servicing may be delegated to another dealer. That it was performed elsewhere does not alter the factum of usage of another service-provider for supplying a service contracted to be provided to a recipient in which the recipient of service is not obliged to meet the costs. Such costs met by appellant are expenditure towards service procured to provide an output service - the decision in the case of Coca Cola India Pvt Ltd v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Pune-III [2009 (8) TMI 50 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT] relied upon where it was held that the appellant is entitled to claim CENVAT credit of tax paid on invoices raised by co-dealers - credit allowed - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.
-
2016 (1) TMI 1133
Period of limitation - Refund claim - Rule 5 of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 - unutilized input service credit availed - export of exempted service subject to satisfaction of other conditions prescribed in Notification No. 5/2006-CE(NT) dated 14/3/2006 - nexus of input services with export of services - Held that:- it appears that the refund claim has been filed within one year from the date of realization of foreign remittance towards export of services. If it is correct then refund cannot be held as time bar. As per the various judgments cited by the appellant it is settled that in case of refund towards export 'relevant date' shall be the date on which foreign remittance has been received and the period of one year for filing refund claim shall be reckoned from date of receipt of foreign exchange. However this aspect has not been verified by the lower authority as the issue under dispute was whether the limitation is applicable for the refund under Rule 5, therefore this matter of refund of ₹ 81,80,550/- which was rejected on time bar needs to be re-examined and therefore same is remanded to the Adjudicating authority.
Cenvat credit - disallowance in respect of input services and corresponding refund - inadmissible input services - Held that:- we agree with the Ld. Commissioner(Appeals) that when there was no proposal in the show cause notice for denying the Cenvat credit at the stage of processing refund, Cenvat credit cannot be disallowed which is clearly beyond the scope of show cause notice. Therefore, we do not find any infirmity in the same and therefore we upheld the order of Commissioner(Appeals) on this issue to the extent he allowed the Cenvat credit and refund and interest thereon.`- Appeal allowed by way of remand
........
|
