|
Advanced Search Options
Service Tax - Case Laws
Showing 1 to 20 of 205 Records
-
2017 (4) TMI 1606
Payment done under the composite scheme @ 2% before 1st March, 2008 - HELD THAT:- There are disclosure of full particulars of tax deposited within the relevant timeframe was necessary. We accordingly direct the appellant to file a comprehensive statement disclosing therein the particulars of vouchers through which the appellants claim that they had paid service tax at the rate of 2% under the composite scheme prior to 1st March, 2008.
We shall take up these matters for hearing on 27th April, 2017.
-
2017 (4) TMI 1502
Maintainability of appeal - Section 35G of the Central Excise Act, 1944 - wholesome order of remand - HELD THAT:- The impugned order of Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal is only a wholesome order of remand in which no question of law has been finally decided against the interest of Revenue. At this stage, it would not be proper for us to entertain this appeal in terms of Section 35G of the Central Excise Act, 1944 because no substantial question of law arises for decision.
Appeal dismissed.
-
2017 (4) TMI 1494
Service tax liability - Construction of academic complex of Indian Institute of Technology (IIT) - HELD THAT:- Ministry/Ministries of the Union of India to explain why in the cases, involving public revenue of high amount, there has been delay in filing the special leave petitions/appeal.
These cases are tagged together to consider the question(s) raised with regard to the delay and will be de-linked after consideration of the reply of the Union.
-
2017 (4) TMI 1473
Renting of immovable property - renting of property to M/s. Royal Orchid Banjara Pvt. Ltd., who are running a hotel on the said premises - HELD THAT:- Delay condoned.
Issue notice.
-
2017 (4) TMI 1464
Import of services or not - booking facility of online air tickets through CRS companies - online information and data base access or retrieval service - HELD THAT:- Issue notice.
-
2017 (4) TMI 1460
Renting of immovable property service - non-payment of service tax - license endorsement fee - period w.e.f. 1/4/2008 to 31/1/2013 - opportunity of hearing to the petitioner - HELD THAT:- In the present case, the Show Cause Notice can never be said to be a Show Cause Notice issued by an Authority without jurisdiction. It is a mere Show Cause Notice and the petitioner show cause before the authorities by filing a proper reply and, therefore, the question of interference by this Court, inspite of the fact that a complete mechanism is provided for ventilating the grievance before the authorities, does not arise.
This Court in similar circumstances has declined to interfere in the matter, as it was certainly against the Show Cause Notice. This Court is of the considered opinion that the present Writ Petition is certainly a premature Writ Petition. Petitioner does have a remedy to file a reply to the Show Cause Notice. He does have a remedy to raise all possible grounds before the Addl. Director General, Directorate General of Central Intelligence and, therefore, the admission is declined.
Petition disposed off.
-
2017 (4) TMI 1373
Reverse charge mechanism - Tour operator services - respondent performed part of their service outside - export of services or not? - Circular of the Board dated 12.10.2007 - Held that:- Admittedly, in respect of respondent’s own case on identical set of facts, for the previous period, COMMISSIONER, SERVICE TAX, DELHI. VERSUS DEWAN TRAVELS PVT. LTD. [2017 (3) TMI 794 - CESTAT NEW DELHI], the Tribunal has held that the tour operator services in case of outbound tours are not taxable - appeal dismissed - decided against Revenue.
-
2017 (4) TMI 1342
Service of notice - Appellant pleaded that they have never received two communications said to have been sent by the jurisdictional officer calling for details - Penalty u/s 77(1)(c) of Finance Act, 1994 - Held that: - We have specifically ascertained from the ld. AR about the existence of evidence for service of the said letters on the appellant. No such evidence is available on record - In the absence of evidence of service of letters calling for such details, it is not proper to presume such delivery of letters and proceed with penal action - penalty set aside - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.
-
2017 (4) TMI 1338
Valuation - commercial training and coaching service - inclusion of the amount of scholarship / fee concession in the taxable value - whether the concessional rate of tuition fee collected from certain category of candidates should be considered for inclusion in the gross value for payment of Service Tax under Section 67 of the Act read with Rule 3 of the Rules?
Held that: - the appellant publishes the names and photographs of those meritorious student s, who achieve merits in various entrance examinations. since on the basis of better performance in the entrance examination, the successful candidates’ names and photos were published in the advertisement, it cannot be said that by providing the concession in fee structure, the appellant creates its brand name or goodwill in the market.
Offering of discount/rebate by the coaching institutes is an accepted trade practice. Thus, the tuition fees actually charged by the appellant, after providing eligible discount/rebate, will only be considered as the gross value for payment of service tax.
Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.
-
2017 (4) TMI 1318
Refund claim - export of goods - rejection on the ground that the claims were filed after a period of six months from the end of the relevant quarter during which the goods were exported - Held that: - it is apparent that the refund claims were filed within six months from the end of the relevant quarter in which payment of the service tax on commission paid in respect of exported goods. The refund claim cannot be filed before the date on which service tax were remitted.
The issue of time bar in this appeal is no longer res integra and is decided by this tribunal in the matter of CCE, Kanpur Vs. Pacific Leather Finishers [2016 (2) TMI 727 - CESTAT ALLAHABAD], where it was held that the limitation cannot start to run unless right to receive a claim or refund crystallized.
Refund allowed - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.
-
2017 (4) TMI 1314
Business Auxiliary service - Appellant's grievance is that the services provided are not related to Business Auxiliary Service since the appellant being a coal crushing company, its activities were manufacture and the goods have suffered excise duty - Held that: - Since we have remanded the matter in a batch of identical cases, it is preferable for the appellant to guide the adjudicating authority with all the relevant decisions, which have come after he has passed the order and lead evidence, if any - appeals are remanded to the adjudicating authority for fresh decision.
-
2017 (4) TMI 1286
Benefit of N/N. 18/2009-ST dated 7.7.2009 - whether fulfillment of conditions prescribed in the N/N. 18/2009-ST dated 7.7.2009 belatedly will entitle the appellant to benefit of the said exemption notification? - Held that: - Reading of the notification shows that the above conditions are regulatory in nature and not mandatory to avail the exemption. If the procedure prescribed is not fulfilled there would be no consequence of denial of the benefit of the notification - appeal allowed.
-
2017 (4) TMI 1283
Penalty - Classification of services - industrial painting and mainly doing the work for M/s. BPCL, M/s. HPCL and M/s. Bombay Paints - whether classifiable under management maintenance or repair service or under Business Auxiliary Service? - Held that: - It is a case where almost entire Service Tax liability had been timely discharged by the applicant by genuinely misclassifying the services rendered by them incorrectly under mistaken belief that the same was classifiable under Business Auxiliary Services rather than Management maintenance and Repair services - By misclassifying the services, the applicant has not gained financially since over ₹ 65 lakhs of Service Tax was already paid and Service Tax rates on both the services were the same - Slight short payment of Service Tax of ₹ 43 471/- has been attributed to accounting and calculation errors, which too stands paid by the applicant along with interest leviable thereon.
No case whatsoever is made out to impose any penalty on the applicants. Such frivolous SCN should not have been issued in the first place.
Immunities to the applicant are granted under Section 32K(1) of the Act as made applicable to Service Tax - decided in favor of applicant.
-
2017 (4) TMI 1279
Waiver of Pre-deposit - Held that: - the decision in the case of Safety Retreading Company (P.) Ltd. Versus Commissioner of Central Excise, Salem [2012 (6) TMI 719 - CESTAT, CHENNAI (THIRD MEMBER)] relied upon where it was held that Service provider is required to produce documentary proof specifically indicating the value of the said goods and materials so sold by them - matter remitted back to the Tribunal for fresh consideration.
-
2017 (4) TMI 1265
Interest on refund - case of Revenue is that the claim was not perfected even with respect to the exact amount of eligibility and till date the amount of eligible refund is not quantified and when the amount of eligible refund is not quantified, award of interest by considering the date of filing of the refund claim is not warranted - Held that: - the issue is squarely covered in favour of the appellant by the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Ranbaxy Laboratories Ltd. [2011 (10) TMI 16 - Supreme Court of India], where it was held that liability of the revenue to pay interest under Section 11BB of the Act commences from the date of expiry of three months from the date of receipt of application for refund under Section 11B(1) of the Act and not on the expiry of the said period from the date on which order of refund is made - appeal dismissed - decided against Revenue.
-
2017 (4) TMI 1234
Refund of CENVAT credit - registrations not done - Held that: - the issue is covered by the decision in the case of Commissioner of Service Tax-III, Chennai Versus Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chennai & M/s. SCIOinspire Consulting Services (India) Pvt Ltd, Chennai [2017 (4) TMI 943 - MADRAS HIGH COURT], where it was held that Rule 5 of the 2004 Rules does not stipulate registration of premises as a necessary prerequisite for claiming a refund - refund allowed - appeal dismissed - decided against Revenue.
-
2017 (4) TMI 1232
Training or coaching services - Vires of explanation added to section 65(105)(zzc) by the Finance Act 14 of 2010 dated 8th May, 2010 with retrospective effect from 1st July, 2003 - whether the amendment brought has retrospective effect or not? - case of petitioner is that the language of this explanation and particularly the words employed “hereby declared” would demonstrate as to how the legislature intended not to give retrospective effect to the 2010 amendment. The amendment is thus but prospective - Held that: - the legislature refers to a commercial training or coaching. It means any training or coaching provided by a commercial training or coaching centre. The commercial training or coaching centre means any institute or establishment providing commercial training or coaching for imparting skill or knowledge or lessons on any subject or field other than the sports, with or without issuance of a certificate and includes coaching or tutorial classes.
Once there is a power to make retrospective amendment and of the above nature, then, one cannot pick one or two words from the explanation and read them in isolation. The explanation would have to be read as a whole. So read, it clarifies the definition of the term “commercial training centre” or “coaching”. Once commercial training or coaching centre is defined and which definition is clarified by this explanation, then, the earlier views of the Benches of CESTAT would not hold the field. No assistance can be derived from the same.
The service tax has to be computed, assessed and recovered in terms of the clear provisions of law and the power to levy, asses and recover is referable to the Central Excise Act, 1944. Therefore, the provisions of section 11A and its subsections and other sections of the Central Excise Act, 1944 would apply. If so applied, there is no basis for the apprehension that the tax would be recovered by extending the retrospective effect given to this explanation. The effect may be from 1st July, 2003, but to recover the tax from that date, there should be a power and there should be no fetter on that power. If there is any fetter or restriction on that power, then, that would operate.
Petition dismissed - decided against petitioner.
-
2017 (4) TMI 1231
CENVAT credit - Gardening service used within their factory - Gardening service was received and used in compliance with the regulation enforced by Pollution Control authorities - Held that: - the issue is decided in favor of assessee in the case of Commissioner of Central Excise and Service Tax Versus M/s. Rane TRW Steering Systems Ltd. [2015 (4) TMI 704 - MADRAS HIGH COURT], where it was held that where an employer spends money to maintain their factory premises in an eco-friendly manner, the tax paid on such services would form part of the cost of the final products and the same would fall within the ambit of "input services" and, therefore, the assessee is entitled to claim the benefit - credit allowed - decided in favor of appellant.
-
2017 (4) TMI 1230
Maintainability of petition - alternative remedy available - issue involved is period of limitation and also the ground of jurisdiction - whether the question involved is mixed question of fact and law and it deserves to be gone into by the appellate forum? - Held that: - in those cases that when an alternative remedy is available, more particularly, in the cases of fiscal nature, invoking of the jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, is not permissible - This Court exercising discretionary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, is not inclined to entertain this writ petition only on the reason of availability of alternative remedy - appeal dismissed - decided against appellant.
-
2017 (4) TMI 1229
Maintainability of petition - availability of an alternative forum, being the Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal - ex facie error of law on the part of the adjudicating authority in ignoring a circular - Held that: - the appellants’ contentions deserve to be examined - So far as the stay petition is concerned, there shall be a restraint order on realization of any sum in pursuance of the order of the Commissioner dated 27th December, 2016 until further order of this Court - petition maintained and thus admitted.
........
|
