Home Case Index All Cases Service Tax 2016 2016 2016 (1) Service Tax - 2016 (1) 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 141 to 145 of 145 Records

• 2016 (1) TMI 66
  

  Clearing and forwarding agent (C&F agent) services - appellant is a distributor of Indian petrochemicals Corporation Ltd. - Scope of the distributor agreement entered by IPCL and the appellant - Held that:- appellant is required to function as distributor and is required to sell the products at a price as per the list price and remit the sale proceeds to IPCL appellant is responsible for discharge of all sales tax liability as dealer under the relevant clause; is required to sell the products as per distribution norms of IPCL; required to disclose as distributor and effect sales of products of IPCL on appellants own bills.

  Identical issue in respect of a distributor of IPCL. In more or less of the same kind of agreement was considered by the Tribunal (in majority decision) in the case of Hardik Industrial Corporation [2011 (9) TMI 494 - CESTAT, AHMEDABAD].

  ---

• 2016 (1) TMI 25
  

  Levy of service tax on the proposed car lease scheme (of providing vehicles to employees) under Section 66B of the Finance Act, 1994 - applicant is an employer and the applicant is providing some service to its employees by giving an option to all such employees to avail of a car. - Held that:- it is making available a car for the use of the employees during the term of their employment for which it is charging only the car rent which the applicant is paying to the car leasing company from which it has hired the car. It is not charging a rupee more or a rupee less.

  There is also an option given to the employee to ultimately purchase the car at the end of his employment and the employee would also be under the obligation to purchase the car at the rate which is a written down value. That by itself, can not be an exception. What is relevant is, as to whether a service is being provided by the applicant to its employees which service is "in the course of" or "in relation to" his employment.

  There can be no dispute that the service of "making available" a car to the employee is being rendered by the applicant. In this context, both the conditions are fulfilled which are conditions in clause (b) of Section 65B (44).

  Whether the car given for official use, for personal use or use for both will not be making any difference. In view of the clear-cut language of Section 65B (44) (b), we answer the question accordingly. - Not liable to service tax.

  ---

• 2016 (1) TMI 24
  

  Cenvat Credit - Capital goods installed in the state of Jammu & Kashmir - services availed in the state of Jammu & Kashmir - imporper duty paying document in respect to managerial services availed - Held that:- all the branch offices of the appellant remain separate service providers even if a centralized registration for discharging service tax liability is obtained by the appellant. Accordingly it is held that when branch office (service provider) in Jammu & Kashmir was not required to discharge service tax then all the capital goods installed in the state of Jammu & Kashmir have to be considered ineligible for taking credit. - Credit dened.

  Regarding input services - As per the above proviso to Rule 6(2) of CCR the Cenvat Credit Rules do not apply to taking of Cenvat Credit of Service Tax. Therefore, Cenvat Credit taken with respect to services availed in the state of Jammu & Kashmir, has been correctly denied to the appellant. - Credit dened.

  Regarding duty paying documents - managerial services received - Held that:- The words “invoice”, “bill” and “challan” have not been defined in the Service Tax Rules, 1994 but the details contained in such documents have been prescribed in Rule 4A(1) of these rules. Further provisos under Rule 4A(1) any document, whether or not serially numbered with respect to banking services, GTA Services, and Aircraft Operator Services; has been prescribed. From a collective reading of these provisions we are of the opinion that if details prescribed in Rule 4A(1) of the Service Tax Rules, 1994 are available in a document then the same can be considered as an invoice, bill or challan and will be a proper document for availing Cenvat credit under CCR. - Credit allowed.

  Extended period of limitation - Held that:- an assessee of the stature of the present appellant, having the best legal advise at their command, can not be considered to be ignorant of law. No where in the statutory returns/intimations, submitted to the department and brought on record, that Cenvat Credit of capital goods and services installed/availed in the state of Jammu & Kashmir has been depicted. Appellant never approached the department at any stage that any ambiguity or confusion exists in taking of credit with respect to capital goods/services installed availed in the state of Jammu & Kashmir. - extended period is applicable and penalty, equivalent to the inadmissible credit, imposed upon the appellant is justified.

  Decided partly in favor of assessee.

  ---

• 2016 (1) TMI 23
  

  Cenvat Credit - input services - receipt of advertisements services for promoting the mutual fund - Held that:- adjudicating authority has admitted the fact that the amount incurred on Advertisement is not reimbursed but he held that it is still to be considered as reimbursable and cannot be considered as non-pure agent service. - it is established that role of asset management is not only related to managing the assets but also to implement overall schemes of M/s.SMF. Therefore Revenue's contention that they cannot undertake any advertisement for promoting the schemes is not justified. - as per SEBI Regulations, the prescribed limit of upto 6% is reimbursable from the fund owner and in the present case appellant not claimed any credit on the amount reimbursed from SMF only after exceeding the limit, the expenses on the advertisement cost was duly included in the value of output taxable service and discharged service tax on the gross value. - Credit allowed since it is an eligible input service.

  Availment of credit on brokerage fee - service tax was paid under reverse charge method - Held that:- Revenue had issued a clarification to the appellant in their letter dt. 3.10.2012 to the appellant that they are eligible for cenvat credit on the service tax incurred and paid by the appellant on brokerage charges. We also find support from the Government advertisement issued by CBEC after the introduction of negative list wherein the Board has categorically clarified that service tax paid on the brokerage commission by Mutual Fund and Asset Management Companies is available as credit for paying service tax on their output services. This advertisement was issued consequent on withdrawal of service tax exemption on brokerage commission w.e.f. 1.4.2015. Therefore, it is evident that when there was no exemption for service tax, the Board had categorically clarified that assessees have to pay service tax under reverse charge and they are eligible for availing credit. - Credit allowed.

  Duty paying documents - validity - Held that:- respondent is entitled to avail credit of service tax on the basis of credit of service tax on the basis of TR-6 challan.

  Appellants are eligible for taking credit on the service tax paid by them on brokerage commission and the demand confirmed by the adjudicating authority is liable to be set aside. Since the appellants succeeds on merits, we do not go into the limitation issue. - Decided in favor of assessee.

  ---

• 2016 (1) TMI 22
  

  Cenvat Credit - GTA service - service tax paid on outward freight charges for delivering the goods from the factory to the customer's premises - Held that:- In view of the decisions of the Hon'ble High Court in the case of Commissioner of Central Excise & Service Tax, LTU, Bangalore Vs. ABB Limited [2011 (3) TMI 248 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT], the matter is remanded back to the original adjudicating authority for de novo adjudication; the original adjudicating authority will give the appellants sufficient opportunity of providing necessary evidence in the form of documents showing compliance of the conditions mentioned in the Board's Circular No. 97/8/2007-S.T. dated 23.8.2007 to claim Cenvat credit of service tax paid on outward freight charges. - Matter remanded back.

  ---

1 ....45678