|
Advanced Search Options
Service Tax - Case Laws
Showing 1 to 20 of 139 Records
-
2016 (2) TMI 1324 - CHHATTISGARH HIGH COURT
Utilisation of CENVAT credit - reverse charge mechanism - HELD THAT:- The question of law as framed on behalf of the Appellant in the present appeal following COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, CHANDIGARH VERSUS M/S NAHAR INDUSTRIAL ENTERPRISES LTD AND OTHERS [2010 (5) TMI 608 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT] has already been decided by a Division Bench of this Court in Union of India v. Mohini Industries [2015 (3) TMI 702 - CHHATTISGARH HIGH COURTtaking the same view and additionally relying upon COMMISSIONER OF SERVICE TAX VERSUS HERO HONDA MOTORS LTD. [2012 (12) TMI 734 - DELHI HIGH COURT] holding that payment of service tax through reverse charge mechanism by utilisation of CENVAT credit was in accordance with law.
Appeal dismissed - decided against Revenue.
-
2016 (2) TMI 1287 - KERALA HIGH COURT
Works Contract - imposition of liabilities referable to service tax - HELD THAT:- The issue stands covered in favour of the respondent for the period in question as per the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Commissioner, Central Excise and Customs, Kerala v. Larsen and Toubro Limited [2015 (8) TMI 749 - SUPREME COURT] where it was held that Works contract were not chargeable to service tax prior to 1.6.2007.
Appeal dismissed.
-
2016 (2) TMI 1265 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in holding that refund claim filed by the appellant is time barred on the ground that the relevant date for filing the refund claim under Notification No. 5/2006-C.E. (N.T.) is the date of export of service or the date when the invoice was raised?
Appeal is admitted on following substantial question of law.
-
2016 (2) TMI 1223 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Demand of service tax - Commercial and Industrial Construction Service - Held that:- Appeal is admitted on the substantial questions of law - Mr. Jetly waives service for Revenue.
-
2016 (2) TMI 1222 - SC ORDER
Rent-a-cab service - transportation services - transportation of papers/answer sheets, examiners – agreement terms indicating vehicle itself not given for operation under ownership and management of client - payments made for operating trips to various places. - Non filing of ST-3 returns - levy of penalty.
Leave granted - Let the matter be added to the hearing list in the first week of August, 2016.
-
2016 (2) TMI 1190 - SC ORDER
Failure to deposit 50% under the Service Tax Voluntary Compliance Encouragement Scheme, 2013 (VCES) - Held that:- There are no merits in the appeal - appeal dismissed.
-
2016 (2) TMI 1170 - CESTAT BANGALORE
Commercial or Industrial Construction Services - Construction of Residential Complex Services - The grievance of the appellant is that they are developers and the definition of Commercial or Industrial Construction Services was amended w.e.f. 01.07.2010, by including the deeming provision in the definition so as to cover the developers also - Held that:- The only question of fact required to be examined is as to whether the appellant was a developer during the relevant period, which is prior to 01.07.2010, or not. This factual position can be arrived at after examining the various contracts and the documentary evidences. Such an exercise can be done at the original adjudication level, for which purpose we set aside the impugned order and once again remand it to the Commissioner for de novo decision - appeal allowed by way of remand.
-
2016 (2) TMI 1166 - CESTAT MUMBAI
Monetary amount involved in the appeal - maintainability of appeal - Held that: - in Boards Circular F.No. 390/Misc./163/2010-JC dated 17.12.2015, the monetary limit for filing of appeals in the Tribunal has been increased from ₹ 5,00,000/- to ₹ 10,00,000/- - Recently, the CBE&C vide Circular dated 1.1.2016 has clarified that the litigation policy shall be applicable with regard to the pending cases also.
In view the fact that the amount involved is less than ₹ 10,00,000/-, the appeal of Revenue is dismissed.
-
2016 (2) TMI 1112 - CESTAT NEW DELHI
Sale or service transaction - Advertising Agency Service - extended period of limitation - Held that: - the appellant was of the bona fide belief that the transaction with M/s. Eastman Cast & Forge Ltd. is a sale transaction and not falls within the ambit of service. Thus, the allegation of suppression of facts with an intent to evade payment of tax cannot be levelled against the appellant - since the SCN was issued on 15-9-2010 seeking recovery of service tax for the periods 2005-06 to 2007-08, is barred by limitation of time being issued beyond the period of one year from the relevant date - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.
-
2016 (2) TMI 1109 - KERALA HIGH COURT
Business auxiliary services - whether the activity of purchase and sale of SIM Cards amounts to carrying on the activity of business auxiliary service? - Held that: - reliance placed in the case of KARAKKATTU COMMUNICATIONS Versus COMMISSIONER OF C. EX., COCHIN [2007 (6) TMI 209 - CESTAT, BANGALORE] - Held that: - The issue, much before the impugned orders were issued, stood covered against the Department.
Amount involved in the appeal - Held that: - the amount involved in each of these appeals is much below the limit at which the Union of India and Central Board of Excise and Customs have decided to peg the litigations in the appellate jurisdiction in the High Court, unless, of course, there is vires of any statutory provision or the content of any notification under challenge apart from issues which have been left out from the financial limits. No such excluded questions arise for decision. That way also, the appellant is bound by the directions of the Central Board of Customs in that regard. These appeals have to therefore, fail.
Appeal dismissed - decided against appellant.
-
2016 (2) TMI 1080 - CESTAT, BANGALORE
Reversal of CENVAT credit - during the course of manufacture of sugar, bagasse comes into existence, Revenue took a view that bagasse is a manufactured product and inasmuch as the same is being cleared without payment of duty, the assessee is required to reverse a particular percentage of the credit so availed by them in terms of the provisions of Rule 6(3) of CCR - Held that: - the issue is no longer res integra. The Honble Allahabad High Court in the case of Gularia Chini Mills Vs UOI & Others [2013 (7) TMI 159 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT] has struck down the Boards Circular and has held that there is no cause for payment of any amount of CENVAT credit in terms of Rule 6(3) of CENVAT Credit Rules 2004 - appeal dismissed - decided against Revenue.
-
2016 (2) TMI 1059 - CESTAT KOLKATA
Restoration of appeal dismissed - dismissal on the ground of non-compliance with the direction of pre-deposit - Held that: - It is reported under letter dated 09th November, 2015 by the Assistant Commissioner, Service Tax, Kolkata that the applicant had not deposited the amount of ₹ 23,12,868/- - application dismissed - decided against assessee.
-
2016 (2) TMI 1044 - CESTAT MUMBAI
Leasing of capital goods - whether the transaction between the appellants and the joint venture company for leasing out the capital goods would fall under the category of supply of tangible goods for use service? - Held that: - the capital goods are in the possession of the lessee and is being used by him for the intended purpose without any interference or hurdle from the appellants. On going through the clauses of agreement, it is found that the appellants had handed over the capital goods possession to the lessee as also the right to use. These two important factors that determine the requirement as to whether the service is a taxable service or otherwise under supply of tangible goods for use services - demand set aside - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.
-
2016 (2) TMI 1035 - CESTAT, HYDERABAD
Imposition of penalty u/s 76 and 78 of the FA - delayed payment of tax - financial difficulties - Held that: - The poor financial situation of the appellant company is established by the documents submitted by the appellant - The Tribunal in the case of Ramanasekar Steels Ltd Vs CCE Chennai [2007 (10) TMI 28 - CESTAT, CHENNAI] exonerated the appellants from the penalty imposed u/s 76 as the company was not in a position to discharge the liability of tax, as the company was declared as a sick company - penalty set aside - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.
-
2016 (2) TMI 1014 - CESTAT CHANDIGARH
Refund claim - export of services - Business Auxiliary Services - rejection on account of Time Bar - Held that: - the appellant was not a liable to pay service tax at all. Therefore, the amount paid by the appellant towards service tax is not service tax, consequently, the provisions of Section 11B of the Act are not applicable - appellant entitle to refund - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.
-
2016 (2) TMI 1012 - CESTAT CHANDIGARH
CENVAT credit - the opening balance of credit availed is shown excess as compared to their account in the return - Held that: - I find that there is no allegation against the appellant that they have wrongly availed credit in their Cenvat credit account. Only document to check whether the appellant has availed the credit wrongly or not is the Cenvat credit account and not ST-3 return although the appellant has shown the excess opening balance in ST-3 return which could have been verified through Cenvat credit account - the credit cannot be denied without corroborative evidence that the appellant has availed credit wrongly - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.
-
2016 (2) TMI 991 - CESTAT ALLAHABAD
CENVAT credit - Telephone services - input services - Installation, liasioning & documentation for electricity connection at cell sites - DG Sets Maintenance & Diesel filling to keep cell site operational - House keeping/Cleaning services - Hotel Services - Balloon delivery services - Held that: - I find that the appellant, is a provider of Mobile Telecom service, needs to keep its tower operational even during power failure to provide good quality of service to their customers/subscribers. These towers are located quite often scattered over a large geographical area and accordingly, the service availed for maintenance of the D.G. sets including filling in fuel etc. I hold that same is essential service for providing the Telecom service. Accordingly, I allow the input credit on the D.G. sets maintenance and Diesel filling activity provided by the service providers to the appellant and allow the Cenvat Credit ₹ 8,25,071/-
House cleaning services - Held that: - This service have been held to be having not nexus with the provision of output services. Further, observing that the category of service is not mentioned in the invoices in question in the impugned order. I find that Housekeeping and gardening services, wherein employer spends money to maintain their factory premises in an eco friendly manner and have paid services tax on such services, the same forms part of the cost of final products and accordingly, same would fall within the ambit of input services.
Hotel services - Held that: - I hold that the Hotel services have been availed for the business travel etc. of the appellant company and the same is necessary for providing the output services. Accordingly, the Cenvat Credit of ₹ 1,28,897/-, is held allowable.
Balloon delivery services - Held that: - I find that the said expenses relates to delivery of 43 packets of Balloons being hiring charges for delivery to Meerut-I+Courier charges+ agency charges paid to Communique Marketing Solutions Pvt. Ltd., who have a valid service tax registration and have been interested by the appellant as a regular marketing/sales promotion vender. Finding that the same relates to marketing and sales promotion by making the name of the company widely known among the probable customers. I find the same as an eligible input service and accordingly, the Cenvat Credit of ₹ 426, is held allowable for the same.
Appeal allowed - credit allowed - decided in favor of assessee.
-
2016 (2) TMI 984 - CESTAT CHANDIGARH
Service Tax Voluntary Compliance Encouragement Scheme, 2013 - rejection of declaration invoking the proviso to Section 106(2) of the Finance Act, 2013 - appellant has already issued summons - Held that: - I find that in the case, the investigation conducted against the appellant by way of summons issued to the appellant has already been dropped, in that circumstances, the appellant is entitled for the benefit of Voluntary Compliance Encouragement Scheme, 2013 - appeal allowed.
-
2016 (2) TMI 983 - CESTAT CHENNAI
Demand - currency conversion charges - Credit Card Services - Debit Card Service - ‘mark up’ considered as service - whether the mark up/currency conversion charges in case of foreign currency transactions which were done, using either a credit or a debit card under the category of “Banking and other Financial Services”? - Held that: - the mark-up is essentially a part of the exchange rate that is to be applied for arriving at the cost of goods or services purchased by the cardholder and hence is a part of the cost of goods/services purchased which are recoverable from the user and is not a consideration for the services of providing credit to the user - “mark up” charges accruing to the issuing bank when cardholder uses credit card to pay in foreign exchange abroad is not liable to service tax under credit card services (under Banking & Other Financial Services) during the relevant period. The demand of ₹ 5,12,64,532/- confirmed in the impugned order is liable to be set aside.
Demand on the amount of “mark up” charges accruing to the issuing bank when cardholder uses debit card to pay in foreign exchange abroad - Held that: - the adjudicating authority demanded service tax under, “operation of Bank a/c” Section 65(12)(ix), under Banking and Other Financial Services. For the identical issue of “mark up”, amount for credit card and debit card, the department cannot demand service tax one under “credit card services - Section 65(12)(ii) and the other under “Operation of Bank a/c”, Section 65(12)(ix). - the mark up is essentially to meet the foreign exchange fluctuations for arriving the cost of the goods/services purchased by the cardholder.
Since we have already held in respect of credit card services, the markup charges is not liable to service tax under credit card services - Section 65(12)(ii), the same is applicable to the mark up charges accruing to the issuing bank in respect of debit card charges. The demand of ₹ 24,51,538/- confirmed by the adjudicating authority in the impugned order is liable to be set aside. As we have already held that service tax is not payable on mark up charges accruing on both credit card and debit card, on merits, we do not go into the other issues, viz. limitation, export of services, place of provision, etc - As regards the penalty imposed under Section 78 of the Act, since the demand of service tax is set aside, the question of penalty does not arise. Accordingly, the penalty imposed under Section 78 is set aside.
Appeal allowed.
-
2016 (2) TMI 979 - CESTAT ALLAHABAD
Cenvat credit - input services - shifting and relocation expenses of the employees incurred by the assessee under the their transfer policy - Held that: - I hold that transfer and shifting expenses incurred by the appellant company pursuance of the policy of employees transfer is eligible input service prior to 1-4-2011. I also hold that in view of the clarification of C.B.E. & C. vide Circular No. 943/4/2011-CX, it has been clarified that expenses having some-tinge of personal nature are not allowable with effect from 1-4-2011, if the same is incurred particularly for an employee. Such expenses are allowable if the same are provided to employees in general as expenditure in relation to the business of an assessee - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.
........
|
