|
Advanced Search Options
Service Tax - Case Laws
Showing 41 to 60 of 185 Records
-
2017 (7) TMI 944 - CESTAT BANGALORE
Penalties - revision under section 84 - Held that: - the issue is squarely covered in favour of the appellant by the Division Bench of this Tribunal in the case of Sneha Minerals [2010 (7) TMI 387 - CESTAT, BANGALORE] wherein in identical facts, this Tribunal set aside the penalties imposed under Sections 76, 77 and 78, and it was held that in relation to the issue pertaining to tax liability of the assessee, there was no merger between the Dy. Commissioner’s decision and the Commissioner’s order and consequently it is not open to the assessee to agitate the issue before this Tribunal - the imposing penalty on the appellant in exercise to the power of revision under Section 84 is not sustainable in law - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.
-
2017 (7) TMI 943 - CESTAT BANGALORE
Refund of input services - denial on the ground of lack of nexus and some of the services are not covered by the definition of ‘input service’ - Held that: - all the input services viz., Parking, Cafeteria, Fitouts, Building, Housekeeping, Management Consultant Services, Custom House Agent Service, Supply of Tangible Goods Service, Event Management Service fall in the definition of ‘input service' as provided under Rule 2(l) of the CCR - with regard to Outdoor Catering and Rent-a-Cab Service both these services are related to the period after the amendment of ‘input service' definition w.e.f. 01.04.2011 and the learned consultant has also agreed not to press the refund of these two input services - appeal allowed - decided partly in favor of appellant.
-
2017 (7) TMI 942 - CESTAT BANGALORE
CENVAT credit - duty paying invoices - it is alleged that the appellants have availed CENVAT credit based on input credit documents addressed to their Head Office situated in Thane, Maharashtra for the period October 2008 to March 2010 which appear to be irregular as the service provider of taxable service is not eligible to avail the credit when the said documents are in the name of the Head Office - Held that: - the issue is squarely covered in favour of the appellant by various decisions wherein it has been consistently held that credit taken on the basis of invoices raised on the Head Office is admissible and the substantive right of the assessee with regard to the CENVAT credit should not be taken away on procedural infractions - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.
-
2017 (7) TMI 905 - CHHATTISGARH HIGH COURT
Works contract - subcontractor of a principal contractor who was involved in construction activity - Held that: - the matter revolves around the proper application of Section 73 of the Finance Act, 1994. That provision opens up by prescribing a period of 18 months to carry out the process which is authorised thereby. This is part of the fundamental contents of sub-section (1) of Section 73 of the Finance Act, 1994. A survey of the different components of Section 73(1) would clearly show that action could follow within the limit of time prescribed under that sub-section only on the existence of the vitiating elements which are enumerated therein. No such ground has been found by the authorities below and the power to invoke Section 73 has not been done within the time prescribed in sub-section (1) thereof which was the only provision which governed the parties at that relevant point of time i.e. to say till the end of the financial year 2007-2008. In this view of the matter, the Appellant is entitled to succeed on this ground as well - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.
-
2017 (7) TMI 904 - CESTAT HYDERABAD
Refund of CENVAT credit - Section 11B - time limitation - denial on the ground that appellant had filed the application for refund claims of Cenvat credit beyond the period of one year from the date of export of services - Held that: - It is noticed that the appellant had sought refund claim under the provisions of N/N. 27/2012-C.E (N.T) wherein it is mentioned that application needs to be filed for refund of the unutilised Cenvat credit within the time limit prescribed under the relevant provisions of the notifications. It is noticed that the entire issue is res integra inasmuch the interpretation of the lower authorities in this case is regarding the relevant date of filing of refund claim - N/N. 27/2012-CE (N.T) by N/N. 14/2016-C.E (N.T), dated 01.03.2016 so as to read what would be the period of one year in respect of service provider, wherein it is mentioned that it will be from the date of receipt of payment in convertible foreign exchange and also the said notification contemplates as to receipt payment of service has been as an advance prior to the date of issue of the invoice.
There is no dispute as to that the refund claims have been filed within one year of receipt of foreign exchange remittances - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.
-
2017 (7) TMI 903 - CESTAT KOLKATA
Refund claim - services used for export of goods - rejection on the ground that the demand is time barred under the N/N. 41/2007-ST dt.06.10.2007 - Held that: - N/N. 41/2007-ST prescribed limitation of 60 days from the end of quarter which was amended by N/N. 32/2008-ST dated 18.11.2008 and extended the period of limitation to six months from the end of the quarter - In the present case, the respondent filed a refund claim on 03.07.2008 for the quarter ending on March, 2008. According to the Revenue, the time period of 60 days would be applicable - by Circular dated 12.03.2009 the refund claim for quarter ending March, 2008 filed under N/N. 41/2007-ST as amended by N/N. 32/2008, the limitation would be six months and effective retrospectively - appeal dismissed - decided against Revenue.
-
2017 (7) TMI 902 - CESTAT BANGALORE
Refund of unutilised CENVAT credit - Rule 5 of the CCR 2004 read with N/N. 5/2006-CE dated 14.03.2006 and 27/2012-CE dated 18.06.2012 - Held that: - the learned Commissioner (Appeals) has omitted to take note of the fact that the lower authority has already reduced the same while granting refund - the original authority has observed that the appellant is paying service tax as a provider of service for the rental income from the sublet premises and the original authority has come to the conclusion that the rental of immovable property service received towards sublet property also should be an ‘input service’ for the appellant.
Denying the refund on Renting of Immovable Property relating to the premises sub-letted is not sustainable and is hereby set aside - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.
-
2017 (7) TMI 901 - CESTAT BANGALORE
Jurisdiction - Power of commissioner to condone delay - Held that: - the appeal before the Commissioner was filed after the delay of 280 days which the Commissioner was not empowered to condone - reliance placed in the decision in the case of Singh Enterprises Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Jamshedpur [2007 (12) TMI 11 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court has held that condonation of delay beyond 90 days not available to the appellate authority - appeal dismissed - decided against Revenue.
-
2017 (7) TMI 900 - CESTAT KOLKATA
Refund claim - Service Tax paid on input service used for export of goods - denial on the ground that the goods were exported from the appellant's warehouse which is not situated under the jurisdiction of Central Excise, Haldia-II Division - Held that: - the manufacturer-exporter of the goods shall file the claim of refund to the Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise or the Deputy Commissioner of Central Excise, as the case may be, having jurisdiction over the factory or the warehouse. On plain reading of the Notification, it is clear that the manufacturer-exporter may file the refund claim to their jurisdictional officers of the factory or the warehouse - In the present case, the appellants filed the refund claims to the Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise having jurisdiction over the factory of manufacturer. The said refund claim cannot be rejected on the ground that a part of the refund related to the warehouse of the exporter.
However, the appellant is not entitled to the refund where the amounts of refund do not co-relate with the documents - appeal allowed - decided partly in favor of appellant.
-
2017 (7) TMI 899 - CESTAT CHENNAI
Family clubbing activities - appellants had received huge consideration in the form of membership fees and charges, however, they did not deposit the service tax payable on such consideration and also did not file service tax returns - penalty - Held that: - Appellants have clearly suppressed the fact of the huge considerations received by them on account of Membership Fees and the like and evaded service tax liability on that count. It is also not the case that the department was well aware of these omissions for the reason that appellants had not filed any returns during the period.
At the same time, I find that the erstwhile section 78, while mandating equal penalty in situations of fraud, suppression of facts etc., did provide for reduction of penalty to 50% where complete transactions are available in specified records - it cannot be denied that complete details of the transactions were available in the records of the appellant, whether in documents or computerized form. Another mitigating factor that has to be noted is that appellant definitely did pay up the tax liability of ₹ 7,50,882/- in March, 2014 itself, although, the show-cause notice was issued much later in October, 2014.
The penalty requires to be reduced to 50% of the service tax demand of ₹ 7,50,882/- - appeal allowed - decided partly in favor of appellant.
-
2017 (7) TMI 898 - CESTAT BANGALORE
Refund claim - Cenvat credit on input services - rejection on the ground that the input credit taken on services against which no invoice or payment challans have been furnished and secondly input credit has been claimed against invoices not in compliance with Rule 4A of the Service Tax Rules - Held that: - the appellant has submitted that they have produced the copies of invoices and the challans on the basis of which the credit has been availed and they have produced the same which has not been considered by the authorities below - also, the cenvat credit has been rejected on the ground that the registration number of the service provider is not mentioned in few invoices which is only a technical lapse provide other particulars are sufficient to justify the proof of receipt of input service and its utilization. Considering the submissions, these appeals need to be remanded back to the original authority with the direction to consider the documents produced by the appellant before deciding the refund claim of the appellant - appeal allowed by way of remand.
-
2017 (7) TMI 852 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Renting of Immovable Property Service - whether the respondents could demand Service Tax, as mentioned in the impugned order? - Held that: - there is no discussion as to the payment effected by the petitioner and no finding has been rendered by the first respondent on the said aspect. Thus, it is clear that the impugned order has been passed without appropriate application of mind. Even after the impugned order was served on the petitioner, the petitioner submitted a representation on 20.10.2016 reiterating his earlier stand and requested for rectification of the mistake by enclosing the copies of the challans, work sheet etc., Inspite of such representation, once again, the first respondent has stated that there is no error in the Order-in-Original calling for rectification.
If respondents 1 and 2 are unable to reconcile the accounts in their office, it shows the manner in which the office administration is taking place. This Court is fully convinced that the petitioner has been harassed by the Department by passing the impugned order - petition allowed - decided in favor of petitioner.
-
2017 (7) TMI 851 - CESTAT ALLAHABAD
Rebate claim - input services utilized in the activity of export of services - denial on the ground that during the period when services were received some of the premises of the appellant company were not registered with the Service Tax Department - N/N. 12/2005-ST - Held that: - the issue is covered by the precedent ruling of this Tribunal in appellants own case [2017 (4) TMI 1084 - CESTAT ALLAHABAD], for the quarters April to June, 2007, July to September, 2007 and October to December, 2007, where it was held that taking notice of the fact that all such unlisted premises had subsequently been registered and recognized for the appellant, and also relying on the ruling of Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in the case of mPortal India Private Ltd [2011 (9) TMI 450 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT], where it was held that Registration not compulsory for refund - appellant is entitled to rebate - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.
-
2017 (7) TMI 850 - CESTAT NEW DELHI
Business Auxiliary Service - “facilitation fee” - Revenue entertained a view that the amount received by the appellant in the name of “facilitation fee”, is commission from various shops and emporia for providing services of promoting or marketing or selling of goods provided or belonging to the emporia/shops, is liable to Service Tax under the category of ‘Business Auxiliary Service’ in terms of clause 19(i) of Section 65 of Finance Act, 1994 - Held that: - It is clear that the appellant, by the act of stopping the buses only in front of contracted emporium and not in front of others, engaged in providing customers to the emporium resulting in promotion of sales. This is clearly in the nature of promoting the sales of goods belonging to the clients and facilitation fee received by the appellant from the emporium is nothing but in the nature of commission received for providing such services - the activity of the appellant is covered by the definition of ‘Business Auxiliary Service’ leviable to service tax.
Extended period of limitation - Held that: - The appellant was already paying service tax under various categories and separate litigation was there whether the activity undertaken by the appellant is covered within the definition of ‘tour operators' - the appellant is a State Government undertaking which can have no intention to deliberately evade payment of service tax - extended period not invoked.
The case is remanded to the original adjudicating authority for requantification of the demand falling within the normal time limit - appeal allowed by way of remand.
-
2017 (7) TMI 849 - CESTAT NEW DELHI
Penalty - Doctrine of merger - CENVAT credit - Department entertained the view that the CTSD, Jaipur is not permitted to transfer the cenvat credit to the SSA, Udaipur on the ground that it is not registered with the Service Tax/Central Excise Department - Held that: - the penalty imposed in the adjudication order dated 27.09.2007 was set aside by the ld. Commissioner (Appeals) vide order dated 22.08.2008. Since, the adjudication order has merged with the Order-in-Appeal passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), the said adjudication order is not in existence for its review by the Administrative Commissioner in terms of Section 84 ibid. Thus, review of the adjudication order (non-existence) and passing of the impugned order are against the principle of doctrine of merger and the same cannot be sustained against the appellant - reliance placed in the case of UNION OF INDIA Versus INANI CARRIERS [2008 (11) TMI 79 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT], where it was held that since order in appeal has been passed against impugned original order, penalty enhanced in revision order is not justified - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.
-
2017 (7) TMI 848 - CESTAT CHENNAI
Business Auxiliary Service - revisionary power under section 84 of FA - Held that: - On perusal of sub-section (4) of section 84, it is clearly stated that no order under the said section shall be passed by the Commissioner in respect of any issue if an appeal against such issue is pending before the Commissioner (Appeals). By letter dated 24.4.2007, the appellants have informed the said fact to the Revisionary Authority. Taking into consideration that the appeal filed by the appellant was pending before the Commissioner (Appeals), the impugned order passed by the revisionary authority confirming the demand of service tax is not sustainable - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.
-
2017 (7) TMI 847 - CESTAT CHANDIGARH
Refund claim - GTA services - N/N. 41/2007-ST - rejection on the ground that description of taxable service was not correctly mentioned in the form prescribed in the notification - Held that: - these are remediable defects which the ld. adjudicating authority has to examine in the spirit of the Notification No. 41/2007 and keeping in mind the Board Circular No. 112/6/2009-ST dt. 12.03.2009. Hence, the matter needs to re-examined by the adjudicating authority - matter on remand.
Refund claim rejected also on the ground that they have claimed drawback and thus violated the provision of proviso (e) of the Notification - Held that: - the ld. Commissioner (Appeals) has gone purely by presumption and not by fact. Reasoning given by the adjudicating authority in this regard also presumes inclusion of the said portion of Service Tax. Hence, this aspect also needs to re-examined by the adjudicating authority.
Appeal allowed by way of remand.
-
2017 (7) TMI 802 - CESTAT MUMBAI
Subscription fee - taxability - case of the department is that the appellant is liable to pay service tax on the subscription fee, annual subscription rate of monthly/annual publications for magazines etc. and value of medical treatment books - whether subscription from the members of the forum is chargeable to service tax under the service of club and association service? - Held that: - This issue in the appellant's own case Sakal Papers Ltd. Versus Commissioner of Central Excise [2015 (8) TMI 1396 - CESTAT MUMBAI], has been decided by this Tribunal, where it was held that rendering of services by the club to its members is not taxable under the category of Club or Association Service - the members subscription received by the forum is not chargeable to service tax - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.
-
2017 (7) TMI 801 - CESTAT HYDERABAD
Refund of CENVAT credit - rejection on the ground that few services of which refund claims are filed cannot be co-related - Held that: - the First Appellate Authority in the impugned order has categorically recorded that the CENVAT credit of the service tax paid on these services are eligible and refund needs to be allowed, based on the various decisions of the Tribunal.
The impugned services have been held admissible for credit/refund in several pronouncements. Following judicial discipline, the matter pertaining to the rejected input services is decided. In terms of the findings, the denial of credit and therefore, of the refund, is set aside in respect of all items - appeal dismissed - decided against Revenue.
-
2017 (7) TMI 800 - CESTAT HYDERABAD
Refund claim - rental income from the residential premises - rejection on the ground of time bar - Held that: - the appellant being registered with the departmental authority should have considered of the provisions before discharging the service tax liability and having not claimed the benefit of available notification and after discharging the service tax liability, cannot now claim that the department has withheld the tax which they are not supposed to collect - the first appellate authority has categorically recorded how the appellant is eligible for part of the refund claim - appeal dismissed - decided against appellant.
........
|
