|
Advanced Search Options
Service Tax - Case Laws
Showing 21 to 40 of 204 Records
-
2017 (12) TMI 1506 - DELHI HIGH COURT
Release of Bank Guarantee - Petitioners took the stand that they are not to liable to pay the service tax for the period prior to 1st June 2007. It is for that reason that instead of paying service tax under protest they furnished a BG in favour of Respondent No.1 - Held that: - If the AAI (Airports Authority of India), on its own, deposited the service tax with the Central Government, the AAI would be entitled to refund thereof in accordance with law - the Court is of the view that there is no justification for Respondent No.1 to continue retaining the BG issued in its favour. Accordingly Respondent No.1 is directed to forthwith return to the Petitioners BG No. PBG 2007/70029 dated 16th February 2008 issued in its for a sum of ₹ 70 lakhs and, in any event, not later than 30th September 2017 - petition allowed.
-
2017 (12) TMI 1505 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Time limitation - validity of SCN - subsequent SCN - Held that: - A finding of fact has been recorded that non-filing of documents as required by summons and non appearance before the authorities is a deliberate violation of law and, therefore, the charge of suppression of facts is clearly borne out from the conduct of the Appellants - It was held that the notices issued on 8th September 2004 were not in continuation of notices for the previous period. The finding of fact is that, the notices issued on 8th September 2004 were not based on identical facts or identical evidences - demand is not barred by limitation.
Appeal dismissed.
-
2017 (12) TMI 1504 - TELANGANA AND ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
Levy of service tax - service provided in SEZ units - case of Revenue is that in the absence of all the agreement copies, there is every possibility that the assessee may have provided services at places outside the SEZ in respect of other units also - Held that: - Under Notification No.4 of 2004 dated 31.03.2004, taxable services of any description, as defined in Section 65(1)(90) of the Finance Act, 1994, provided to a developer of a SEZ or a unit of a SEZ by any service provider is exempted from the whole of the service tax leviable thereon, subject to conditions.
The Tribunal failed to note that the assessee produced invoices clearly indicating that the services provided by him were in a SEZ - As the Tribunal did not take note of these factual aspects while considering the application filed by the assessee for waiver of the predeposit and stay and straight away directed deposit of the entire assessed liability as a condition precedent, consequent upon which the appeal itself came to be dismissed thereafter owing to his failure to do so, we are of the opinion that the orders under appeal cannot be sustained and the Tribunal necessarily has to examine the matter afresh - matter on remand.
-
2017 (12) TMI 1503 - CESTAT BANGALORE
Levy of service tax - composite works contract - whether the service tax can be levied on indiisible Works Contract Service(WCS) prior to 01/06/2007 i.e. the date of introduction of WCS under Section 65(105)(zzzza) of the Act? - Held that: - issue is no more res integra and has been settled by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of L&T Ltd. [2015 (8) TMI 749 - SUPREME COURT] wherein the Hon’ble apex court has held that prior to 01/062007, there was no charging section to specifically levy service tax on WCS, or mechanism to tax service tax element derived from gross amount charged for works contract less value of the property in goods transferred in execution of works contract.
This Tribunal in the appellant s own case, ABB LTD. Versus COMMISSIONER OF SERVICE TAX, BANGALORE [2010 (7) TMI 335 - CESTAT, BANGALORE] has allowed the appeal of the appellant by discussing all the sub-contracts in the main contract which form part of the composite contract.
Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.
-
2017 (12) TMI 1502 - CESTAT BANGALORE
CENVAT credit - sole selling commission - input service or not? - Held that: - the sales commission is directly attributable to the sales of the product. Any activities which amounts to sale of the product is deemed to be sales promotion activity in the normal trade parlance. The commission is paid on the sale of the product / services with an intention to boost the sale of the company. In view of this, the sales commission has a direct nexus with the sales which in turn is related to the manufacture of the product - credit allowed - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.
-
2017 (12) TMI 1501 - CESTAT BANGALORE
Penalty u/s 76 and 78 - non-payment of service tax - Management, Repair and Maintenance Service - Held that: - there is no suppression on the part of the assessee to attract Section 78 - penalty u/s 78 set aside.
Penalty u/s 76 - Held that: - the appellant has already paid service tax of ₹ 7,38,873/- and also penalty under Section 78 amounting to ₹ 1,86,765/- being 25% of the penalty imposed and penalty under Section 76 amounting to ₹ 1,35,300/- and penalty under Section 77 ₹ 1,000/- and interest of ₹ 1,43,802/- as per the challans attached with the appeal. Since the assessee has paid the penalties under Section 76 and 78 which are not warranted and in view of my discussions above, I partially allow the appeal of the appellant and drop the penalties imposed under Section 76 and 78.
Penalties set aside - appeal dismissed - decided against Revenue.
-
2017 (12) TMI 1500 - CESTAT BANGALORE
Tax collected but not paid - Advertising Agency Services - penalty u/s 77 and 78 - Held that: - the service tax was collected by the appellant from its customers and has not been deposited in the Government account. Further there are no justifiable reason for not depositing the service tax in the Government account - appellant paid the service tax along with interest only after it was detected by the Department - penalty upheld - appeal dismissed - decided against appellant.
-
2017 (12) TMI 1499 - CESTAT ALLAHABAD
Penalties u/s 73, 77 and 78 of the FA, 1994 as also u/s 70(a) of the Act read with Rule 7 and Rule 7C of the STR, 1994 - late registration with the Service Tax Department for not paying the Service Tax of ₹ 34,262/- on Reverse Charge Basis and the late filing the ST-3 returns - Held that: - the Tribunal in number of decisions, has held that when the law is not clear, the assessee cannot be held guilty of any suppression etc in the absence of any evidence to the contrary - There could be a doubt entertained by the assessee. When the assessee is reflecting all their business activities in their balance sheet, no malafide can be attributed to them - penalty set aside - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.
-
2017 (12) TMI 1498 - CESTAT ALLAHABAD
Penalties - non-payment of service tax - Annual Maintenance Contract Services - payment of tax with interest on being pointed out - Held that: - the legal issues, during the relevant period, were not very clear, thus, giving doubts to the assesses. In as much as, the services were a part of the appellant’s record, there was no escape for the appellant to deposit the Service Tax. In this scenario, no mala-fide intention can be attributed to the assessee so as to attract penal provisions - penalty set aside - appeal allowed.
-
2017 (12) TMI 1497 - CESTAT BANGALORE
Rebate claim - export of services - Time limitation - Section 11B of CEA - Held that: - in the present case, rebate claims have been filed within one year from the date of receipt of foreign exchange, which is relevant date for computation of limitation - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.
-
2017 (12) TMI 1496 - CESTAT BANGALORE
Refund of unutilized CENVAT credit - input services or not - denial on the ground of nexus - All the services have been held to be input service in various decisions relied upon by the appellant and the details of the invoices have also been given along with the appeal memorandum - also, the original authority has committed computation error in determining the amount of refund which is eligible by wrongly applying the method for computation of refund - the original authority directed to recompute the refund amount in accordance with law - appeal allowed.
-
2017 (12) TMI 1495 - CESTAT CHANDIGARH
Refund claim - service tax paid which is not payable - Rejection on the ground of time limitation - Section 11B of the CEA, 1944 - Held that: - It is admitted fact that the appellant is service provider in the state of Jammu & Kashmir and for the services provided by the appellant in the state of Jammu & Kashmir, no service tax is payable. In that circumstance, the amount paid towards service tax by the appellant is not an amount of service tax - when it is not an amount of service tax than the provisions of Section 11B of the Act are not applicable to the facts of this case - refund allowed - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.
-
2017 (12) TMI 1493 - CESTAT BANGALORE
Levy of service tax - tour operator service - exemption Notification No. 20/2009-S.T., dated 7-7-2009 - Held that: - the services of the type rendered by the appellant have been exempted from payment of service tax vide Notification No.20/2009. This notification has further been amended to give retrospective effect as per Section 75 of the Finance Act, 2011. The retrospective benefit has been granted for the period with effect from 01/04/2000 - demand of tax not justified.
Similar issue decided in the case of A. MANIMEGALAI Versus COMMISSIONER OF C. EX. (SERVICE TAX), SALEM [2014 (6) TMI 490 - CESTAT CHENNAI], where it was held that activity undertaken by the appellants was exempted by Notification No. 20/2009-S.T., dated 7-7-2009 and the retrospective effect was granted to the exemption through Section 75 of the Finance Act, 2011 and the same is applicable from 1-4-2000.
Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.
-
2017 (12) TMI 1444 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Levy of service tax - construction contract executed on turnkey basis - indivisible contracts - Held that: - Upon appreciation of evidence, the tribunal has come to the conclusion that there is an indivisible contract.
On the aspect as to whether Service Tax can be levied in respect of composite contract or indivisible contract, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Commissioner of Central Excise & Customs, Kerala Vs. Larsen & Toubro Limited [2015 (8) TMI 749 - SUPREME COURT] has held that assessees are correct in their submission that a works contract is a separate species of contract distinct from contracts for services simpliciter recognized by the world of commerce and law as such, and has to be taxed separately as such.
Upon consideration of the clauses in the contract, the tribunal has arrived at a categorical finding of fact that there is an indivisible contract. No concrete material, contra, is placed, before us for reversal of such finding.
Decided against Revenue.
-
2017 (12) TMI 1443 - CESTAT BANGALORE
Penalty - the appellant did not pay the service tax and it was only paid when the intelligence visited the premises of the appellant - Held that: - the appellant paid the service tax along with interest during investigation and before the issue of SCN. The appellant entertained a bona fide belief that their activities are not liable to service tax during the period in dispute and it is only on 06/11/2006, the Board clarified the issue - there cannot be a suppression with intent to evade tax when the assessee entertained a bona fide belief on the basis of certain decisions in favor of the assessee - penalty set aside - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.
-
2017 (12) TMI 1442 - CESTAT BANGALORE
Voluntary Compliance Encouragement Scheme (VCES) - rejection of the application - Appellant submitted that, merely because the appellant had been issued with a notice for the earlier period, would not mean that the First Proviso to subsection (1) of Section 106 of the Finance Act, would come into operation - Held that: - identical issue decided in the case of Durgapur Diesel Sales & Service & Another Versus Superintendent (Service Tax) Central Excise Durgapur – I Division & Others [2015 (2) TMI 50 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT] where it was held that The second proviso envisaged an embargo in making a declaration even for a subsequent period on the same issue - appeal dismissed - decided against appellant.
-
2017 (12) TMI 1441 - CESTAT BANGALORE
CENVAT credit - consultancy services - denial on the ground that the project for which consultancy was received was fully abandoned without its implementation - Held that: - CENVAT credit once rightly availed is indefeasible and subsequent development of abandoning of plant will not make the appellant liable to reverse the CENVAT credit which was rightly availed by them - the credit was rightly availed during the period 2004-06 for the purpose of availing the Management Consultancy Service received by the appellant during the said period - credit remains allowed - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.
-
2017 (12) TMI 1440 - CESTAT BANGALORE
Rejection of VCES application - the Revenue noticed that the appellant has failed to declare his service tax liability properly and by-alleging substantial misdeclration of service tax dues in the VCES declaration, a SCN was issued - Held that: - the total amount of consideration received by the appellant has not been found to be any different from what was declared - Revenue has not made out a case of substantial misdeclaration in this case. They have not brought on record any contract or document which indicates that the appellant has not made full declaration of the service tax liability for the disputed period. The Revenue has only taken a different interpretation as far as the classification of services. This cannot tantamount to substantial misdeclaration - tax liability accepted in the VCES by the appellant is not being interfered - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.
-
2017 (12) TMI 1439 - CESTAT ALLAHABAD
Transmission & distribution of electricity - N/N. 45/2010-ST dated 20.07.2010 - negative list - POT rules - Held that: - the adjudicating authority has not dealt with the assessee’s stand of the services being covered by the negative list and as such his views are not available - the stand of the Revenue is that the consideration received subsequent to 01.07.2012 would also be taxable is required to be adjudged and examined in the light of the point of Taxable Rules, 2011 - matter needs to be remanded to the adjudicating authority for fresh decision - appeal allowed by way of remand.
-
2017 (12) TMI 1438 - CESTAT BANGALORE
Penalties u/s 76 and 77 - delayed payment of tax with interest - Held that: - since there was not intent to evade duty involved, tax with interest was paid although after delay - penalty u/s 77 dropped by invoking section 80.
Penalty u/s 76 - Held that: - since the appellant has paid the dues after a lapse of longer period, therefore he is liable to pay the penalty under Section 76 as held by the original authority - penalty u/s 76 upheld.
Appeal allowed in part.
........
|
