Case Laws |
Home Case Index All Cases Service Tax 2017 2017 2017 (7) Service Tax - 2017 (7) This
|
Advanced Search Options
Service Tax - Case Laws
Showing 181 to 185 of 185 Records
-
2017 (7) TMI 62 - CESTAT ALLAHABAD
Export of service - 100% EOU - Penalty - Held that: - the appellant is not a subcontractor, but a co-venture along with JBL in executing the research and development assignments for clients like Eli Lilly and Company Ltd, USA situated outside India. We are further satisfied that the appellant have exported their services under the agreements, and also received payments in convertible foreign exchange through the EEFC account operated by JBL, as the lead venture - We also take notice of the certificate of chartered accountants, annexed in the paper book, which was also before the court below, which certifies that during the period in question, the affairs of the appellant have been verified and examined the payments made by Jubilant Biosys Limited to Jubilant Chemsys Ltd for its share of activities under the work orders received from the parties located outside India - the appellant have satisfied both the conditions for export of service, namely rendering of service from India and receipt of the service by the client outside India of consideration in convertible foreign currency in India - Decided in favor of the assessee.
-
2017 (7) TMI 61 - CESTAT NEW DELHI
Refund claim - N/N. 41/2007-ST dated 06.10.2007 - THC charges - bill of lading charges - origin haulage charges - repo charges etc. - denial on the ground that the services are not port services - Held that: - the services in relation to THC charges, bill of lading charges, origin haulage charges, repo charges etc., were used/utilized by the appellant within the port for exportation of the goods. Since the services were used by the appellant within the port, irrespective of the classification of those services, the refund benefit should be available in terms of Notification dated 06.10.2007 - refund allowed.
Refund claim - denial also on the ground that debit note is not the proper document, in terms of Rule 4 A and 4 B of the Service Tax Rules, 1994 - Held that: - sample copy of debit note contains the reference of the container, shipping bill No., description of service value, and the service tax, registration No. of the service provider etc. Since the said information are corelatable with the export documents, I am of the view that refund benefit cannot be denied for the reason that the debit note is not the prescribed document under the Service Tax Statute - the matter should go back to the Original Authority for verification of the documents, to be submitted by the appellant - matter on remand.
Appeal allowed - decided partly in favor of appellant and part matter on remand.
-
2017 (7) TMI 28 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Rectification of mistake - refund claim - 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 Mere perusal of Rule 5 of the 2004 Rules, would, inter alia, show that where a service provider, provides an output service, which is exported, without payment of service tax, he would be entitled to refund of cenvat credit, as determined by the formula provided in the Rule - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.
-
2017 (7) TMI 27 - CESTAT BANGALORE
Penalty - Consulting engineering services - short payment of tax - Held that: - he appellant paid tax with interest on being pointed out - in the show-cause notice, there is no allegation of suppression or fraud or collusion or wilful misstatement and the delay in payment occurred on account of the fact that the appellant had sought legal opinion as the appellant had a doubt about the taxability of the impugned services - reliance was placed in the case of Tidewater Shipping Pvt. Ltd. vs. CST [2008 (3) TMI 47 - CESTAT, BANGALORE], where it was held that if the assessee cleared the service tax along with interest on his own, then no penal proceedings can be initiated against them and all the proceedings against the appellant are deemed to have been concluded.
Once the appellant has paid the service tax along with interest due, then the penalty cannot be imposed as there was no mens rea on the part of the appellant to evade payment of service tax - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.
-
2017 (7) TMI 26 - CESTAT BANGALORE
Maintainability of appeal - pre-deposit - Section 35F of the CEA 1944 - Held that: - the present appeals are not maintainable without the mandatory pre-deposit as provided under Section 35F of the Central Excise Act 1944 - appeal dismissed - decided against appellant.
....
|
|