|
Advanced Search Options
Service Tax - Case Laws
Showing 1 to 20 of 131 Records
-
2016 (4) TMI 1465
Commissioning or installation of construction service - Activity of laying, jointing, testing and commissioning of PSC Pipes, construction of pumps, civil structures, supply, delivery and commissioning of submersible pump set and turbine pump sets, maintenance etc. - it was held by High Court that It was an activity in public interest, to take care of the civic amenities liable to be provided by the State. Therefore, the Tribunal was right in holding in favour of the Assessee - HELD THAT:- Leave granted.
-
2016 (4) TMI 1461
Demand of service tax - Reverse charge mechanism - Overseas Commission Agent - it was held by CESTAT that the appellants claimed benefit of exemption Notification 14/2004 dt.10.9.2004 which was denied by the lower authorities, the demand of service tax under reverse charge confirmed against the appellants is set aside - HELD THAT:- Appeal admitted.
Tag with Civil Appeal Nos. 8676-8678 of 2015.
-
2016 (4) TMI 1420
Denial of CENVAT Credit - input services - installation and commissioning related services on the input side for bringing into existence a pipeline - HELD THAT:- Issue Notice and Notice as to interim relief returnable on 27th April, 2016.
-
2016 (4) TMI 1385
Classification of services - Business Auxiliary Services - Department took a prima facie view that the contract was for the purpose of packing, loading and unloading etc. of the goods, for which labour was supplied by the respondent to M/s Birla Corporation Ltd. - HELD THAT:- The High Court has simply gone by the contract in question, which was entered into between the respondent and M/s Birla Corporation Ltd. and taking into consideration all the averments, which were made in the show cause notice, on the basis of admitted facts, it has come to a conclusion that even when the allegations in the show cause notice are accepted, the said contract does not amount to providing any 'Cargo Handling Service' as defined under Entry 23 of Section 65 of the Act. Therefore, we are of the opinion that the High Court did not commit any mistake or illegality in entertaining the writ petition when no disputed questions of fact were involved and the legal issue was to be decided on the basis of the facts, as admitted by the parties, which were so specifically recorded by the High Court itself.
The High Court, on the interpretation of the aforesaid Entry, has observed that two conditions for considering any service to be 'Cargo Handling Service' need to be satisfied, namely; (1) there must be a cargo i.e. a packed or unpacked commodity accepted by a transporter or carrier for carrying the same from one destination to another. It is only after the commodity becomes a cargo, its loading and unloading at the freight terminal for being transported by any mode becomes a cargo handling service, if it is provided by an independent agency and; (2) the service provider must independently be involved in loading-unloading or packing-unpacking of the cargo - in the instant case, as per the contract entered into between the respondent and the customer, namely, M/s Birla Corporation Ltd., the respondent was to supply manpower for working at the packing plant as per the customer's requirement. The contractor-respondent was to ensure that manpower deployed on the work given by customer's officers is executed properly, diligently, uninterruptedly and to the satisfaction of the customer in the factory premises of its works.
It is significant to note that no part of loading or unloading was assigned to the workers of the respondent-assessee upto transportation of the cement bags out of the factory. This work was, in fact, been performed by the automatic machines. It is through these automatic machines, the cement bags were loaded, unloaded, packed or unpacked and this included Cargo Handing Services provided for freight in special containers or for non-containerized freight, services provided by a container freight terminal or any other freight terminal, for all modes of transport and cargo handling service incidental to freight, but does not include handling of export cargo or passenger baggage or mere transportation of goods.
The High Court has rightly concluded that the aforesaid services would not fall within the definition of 'Cargo Handing Services'.
The conclusion of the High Court that services provided by the respondent-assessee did not amount to Cargo Handling Services and, therefore, no such service tax was leviable is upheld - Appeal dismissed.
-
2016 (4) TMI 1383
Liability of service tax of respondent KSFE for the transactions which were subject of consideration - HELD THAT:- In Muthoot FinCorp. Ltd. v. CCE, Visakhapatnam [2009 (8) TMI 236 - CESTAT, BANGALORE], the Tribunal had taken the view that similar transactions were not exigible to service tax. The concept of the transaction is that KSFE provides service by releasing funds to a person in India, as a result of the money transferred through M/s. Paul Merchants Ltd., which is ‘PML’, for short. The Tribunal has noted that as a matter of fact, if a person pays money in England or elsewhere outside India to be given to his relative in India and the KSFE by virtue of the sub-representation agreement arranges to deliver the said money to the beneficiary on verification of identity, for this exercise, the KSFE does not charge any amount as commission or fee from the recipients of the amount. The charge if any levied by the company outside India on the person who pays the amounts is not a transaction in India.
The CESTAT was justified abundantly in following the ratio of Muthoot FinCorp and deciding that KSFE, which was in appeal before the CESTAT, was entitled to an order as has been granted by the Tribunal - Appeal dismissed.
-
2016 (4) TMI 1380
Cargo Handling Agent services - demand of service tax - invoking extended period - the appellant-Department has challenged the order of the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, West Zonal Bench at Mumbai, dated 3-9-2014 that was based on the judgment of the Orissa High Court in the case of COAL CARRIERS VERSUS COMMR. OF C. EX., CUS. & ST., BHUBANESWAR [2011 (2) TMI 1140 - ORISSA HIGH COURT] - HELD THAT:- It appears that the Hon’ble Supreme Court has allowed the appeal preferred by the assessees and the Department before the Hon’ble Supreme Court and the judgment of the Orissa High Court in the aforesaid case has been set aside. It appears that the Hon’ble Supreme Court has directed the CESTAT to constitute a larger Bench immediately so that the controversy is decided finally within one year.
The impugned order passed by the CESTAT, dated 3-9-2014 is hereby quashed and set aside. The appeal filed by the respondent herein is restored before the CESTAT at Mumbai.
Appeal disposed off.
-
2016 (4) TMI 1371
Renting of immovable property - renting of property to M/s. Royal Orchid Banjara Pvt. Ltd., who are running a hotel on the said premises - scope of which excludes the buildings used for purposes of accommodation, including hotels - HELD THAT:- The issue stand decided in the appellant's own case for the prior period in [. 2014 (10) TMI 872 - CESTAT NEW DELHI .]where it was held that
Demand set aside - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.
-
2016 (4) TMI 1339
Territorial Jurisdiction - SCN issued by Mumbai Office of Service Tax Department for whole of India offices - Held that:- There is no reason to interfere with the impugned order - appeal dismissed.
-
2016 (4) TMI 1333
Works contract - classification of contract after 01.06.2007 where contract entered into prior to 01.06.2007 - Held that:- Appeal admitted - Mr. V. Giri, learned senior counsel along with Mr. Ananga Bhattacharyya and Mr. Nikhil Nayyar, learned counsel have entered appearance on behalf of some of the respondents. The said respondents need not be issued notice.
-
2016 (4) TMI 1315
Levy of service tax - spare parts sold in the course of providing service - Held that: - Service Tax law not being a commodity taxation law, the spare parts sold in the course of providing service during the warranty period shall not be liable to levy of service tax thereon - appeal allowed.
-
2016 (4) TMI 1308
Club or Association Services - penalty - Held that: - the penalty issue cannot be decided without first deciding the appellant’s liability to pay service tax - the present appeal requires to be remanded to the Commissioner (Appeals) for fresh decision alongwith the assessee’s appeal filed against confirmation of demand of duty - appeal allowed by way of remand.
-
2016 (4) TMI 1278
Penalty u/s 76, 77 and 78 - delayed payment of service tax - Foreign Commission Agents - reverse charge mechanism - Held that: - similar issue decided in appellant's own case for the earlier period on similar issue M/s. RSWM Ltd. Versus CCE, Jaipur-II [2016 (11) TMI 1363 - CESTAT NEW DELHI], where it was held that in absence of any malafide on the part of the appellant, the imposition of penalty upon them is not justifiable - by invoking section 80, penalty is thus set aside - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.
-
2016 (4) TMI 1246
CENVAT credit - capital goods - input services - Held that: - The credit availed on motor cars is per se not admissible as the services rendered do not fall within the category mentioned in clause (B) of Rule 2(a) of the definition of capital goods given in the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 - The credit on certain other capital goods (Rs. 49,065/-) has been denied for the reason that appellant has not mentioned the classification of goods in their invoices.
Time limitation - Held that: - The appellant failed to file ST-3 returns. Only on filing such service tax return would the availment of credit on motor car and capital goods be disclosed to the Service Tax Department. Filing of income-tax returns would not suffice the requirement to file ST-3 returns - extended period invoked.
Appeal dismissed - decided against appellant.
-
2016 (4) TMI 1241
Insurance as well as reinsurance broker – international insurance - service providers situated abroad - import of services and / or export of services - reinsurance brokerage was not included in the taxable value of ‘insurance auxiliary service’ rendered to insurers/reinsurers for the disputed period - reverse charge - effective date of levy - the decision in the case of Suprasesh General Insurance Services & Brokers Pvt. Ltd. Versus The Commissioner of Service Tax, Custom, Excise And Service Tax Appellate Tribunal [2015 (9) TMI 1219 - MADRAS HIGH COURT], contested for condonation of delay - Held that: - delay condoned.
-
2016 (4) TMI 1218
Jurisdiction - power to review - Held that: - the notice proposing revision was issued on 27th April, 2011, well after the amendment that substituted the erstwhile Section 84 - Held that: - The revision powers were sought to be invoked under a non-existent provision and hence the review undertaken by the Committee of Chief Commissioners is without jurisdiction - appeal rejected - decided against Revenue.
-
2016 (4) TMI 1173
Allotment of land on lease basis - setting up an establishment for manufacturing IMFL, Winery and a Mini Brewery Unit - whether the transaction is amenable to service tax and the same has to be paid? - Held that: - A perusal of Section 65(90a) and Section 65(105)(zzzz) of the Finance Act, 1994 as quoted in the letter dated 23-11-2015 clearly shows that “Renting of Immovable Property Service” includes renting, letting, leasing, licensing or other similar arrangements amounts to providing service and under Section 65(105)(zzzz) it is a taxable service.
What is taxable is the consideration for the transfer. Even if premium is charged that is like charging of one time rent and then rebate is given for the yearly rent to be paid. Premium is also part of the lease money. Therefore, the entire transaction both premium and rent are amenable to service tax and service tax will have to be paid on the same.
Petition dismissed - decided against petitioner.
-
2016 (4) TMI 1172
Activity of trading - Rule 6(3) (ibid) - N/N. 3/2011-C.E. (N.T.), dated 1-3-2011 - whether the trading activity has an exempted services or not? - Held that: - for the period prior to 1-4-2011, the provisions of Rule 6(3) of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 are not applicable to the facts of this case. For the period, post 1-4-2011, I find that the appellant has availed proportionate Cenvat credit attributable to their taxable service and they have not availed any Cenvat credit attributable to their trading activity, therefore, again I hold that provisions of Rule 6(3)(ii) of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2002 are not applicable to the facts of this case - reliance placed in the case of Orion Appliances Ltd., [2010 (5) TMI 85 - CESTAT, AHMEDABAD] wherein it has been held that trading activity covered under sales tax law and cannot be called the services therefore, trading activity has not an exempted service - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.
-
2016 (4) TMI 1171
Renovation services - completion or finishing services falling under commercial or industrial construction services - Abatement - N/N. 15/2004-S.T., dated 10-9-2004 and N/N. 1/2006-S.T., dated 1-3-2006 - Held that: - It is well settled law that the law declared by the highest court of the country has to be interpreted in such a manner as if the same was the law, even prior to declaration of the same by Hon’ble Supreme Court. As such, we find favour with the appellant’s stand that whatever duty stands paid by them was also wrongly paid as there was no tax liability on their part in view of the recent decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.
-
2016 (4) TMI 1144
Job work - Business Auxiliary Services (BAS) - activity of chilling of milk - Held that:- the process of chilling of milk to make it fit for long distance transportation without getting spoiled, is an activity not covered under the Business Auxiliary Service definition. - demand of service tax set aside - Decided in favor of assessee.
-
2016 (4) TMI 1113
Validity of order passed ex-parte - Violation of principles of natural justice - Demand of Service tax - Invokation of extended period of limitation - Appellant provided services of protection, pipe laying using trenching/trenchless, reinstatement of trench, OFC cable blowing including other associated works to its clients - Appellant contended that it had carried out substantial part of work prior to levy of service tax and thus, there was no question of levy of tax on services rendered prior to date of levy of tax.
Held that:- appeal against the order of Commissioner (Appeals) was filed by the revenue before the Tribunal on 15.1.2009 but due to pendency before the Tribunal, it came up for hearing on 23.7.2014. No fresh notice of the date of hearing was received by the appellant. Thus, there was non appearance on the part of the appellant. The Tribunal after hearing the representative of the department allowed the appeal ex parte. Therefore, sufficient opportunity to represent its case was not afforded to the appellant before passing the impugned orders. Thus, there was violation of the principles of natural justice. - Appeal disposed of by remanding the matter back
........
|
