|
Advanced Search Options
Service Tax - Case Laws
Showing 1 to 20 of 291 Records
-
2017 (9) TMI 1909 - CESTAT CHANDIGARH
Condonation of delay in filing appeal - service and receipt of notice - Time limitation - case of the Revenue is that the order dated 13-9-2013 was dispatched to the appellant through speed post on 1-10-2013 but acknowledged receipt for the same has not been produced on record - HELD THAT:- The case of the appellant is that they received the adjudication order only on 4-6-2014 and on receipt of the same, they filed appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) on 4-8-2014, which is well within the time. Therefore, the appellant prays that the delay is condoned. As the acknowledgment receipt of despatch of adjudication order through speed post is missing, in that circumstance, benefit of doubt goes in favour of the appellant.
Thus, the appellant has filed the appeal before Commissioner (Appeals) within time and if there is any delay, the same is condoned - Considering the fact that Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) has not decided the issue on merits, by setting aside the impugned order, the matter is remanded back to the Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) to decide the issue on merits after affording reasonable opportunity of hearing to the appellant.
Appeal allowed by way of remand.
-
2017 (9) TMI 1876 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD
CENVAT Credit - input services - Air Travel Agent Service - Tour Operator’s Service - Courier Service - Cleaning Service - Life Insurance of the employees - Mandap Keeper Service - GTA Service - HELD THAT:- The respective services have been held to be ‘Input service’ as defined under Rule 2(l) of CCR, 2004 in various services, and accordingly, the service tax paid on these services is admissible to credit. However, in the case of credit of service tax paid on the GTA Service, it is necessary to ascertain the from the condition of sale, whether the place of removal is at the factory or at customer’s premises, before allowing the credit - reliance can be placed in the case of Principal Commissioner vs. Essar Oil Ltd [2015 (12) TMI 1062 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT], Haldyn Glass Ltd. & Ors. Vs. C.C.E & S.T - Vadodara-II [2017 (8) TMI 1217 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD] and Birla Corporation Limited vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Bhopal [2014 (1) TMI 148 - CESTAT NEW DELHI].
For ascertain the said fact the matter remanded to the adjudicating authority - Appeal allowed by way of remand.
-
2017 (9) TMI 1785 - CESTAT BANGALORE
Adjustment of amounts paid by them during the pendency of the adjudication and the appeal proceedings - refund of excess amount - Held that:- Any amounts paid by an assessee or a litigant during the pendency of the appeal should be construed as an amount paid in respect of the said litigation and there being finality of the order of the Tribunal that extended period cannot be invoked by the show cause notice dated 21-3-2006, the amount which has been deposited by the appellant needs to be refunded to him after adjusting the confirmed duty liability and the interest thereof.
Penalty u/s 76 of FA - Held that:- This is a fit case to invoke provisions of Section 80 of the Finance Act, 1994 and set aside the penalty as appellant having been litigating the issue for liability to pay tax as a State Government Body, has made out a case for invoking the said provisions - penalty set aside.
Appeal disposed off.
-
2017 (9) TMI 1769 - SC ORDER
Job work - Business Auxiliary Services (BAS) - activity of chilling of milk - Held that:- The Appeal is admitted.
-
2017 (9) TMI 1756 - CESTAT NEW DELHI
Business auxiliary service - services of chilling of Milk to M/s. Reliance Diary Food Ltd. - period in dispute is 1-4-2006 to 30-9-2010 - Held that:- The issue is settled in the case of M/S. SHARMA ICE FACTORY VERSUS CCE. - JAIPUR-I [2014 (6) TMI 493 - CESTAT NEW DELHI], where it was held that chilling of milk is not Business Auxiliary Service covered by Section 65(19)(v) of the Finance Act, 1994 - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.
-
2017 (9) TMI 1743 - SC ORDER
Charges collected by the appellant from the allottees of land - taxability - substantial part of the demand against the appellant in various proceedings, relate to their service tax liability on lump-sum premium amount, received by them from the allottees on allotment of land on long term basis - Held that:- There will be a stay of the impugned judgment and order dated 12-5-2017 passed by the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi.
-
2017 (9) TMI 1679 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
Member's club - club or association or not? - Chapter-V of the Finance Act, 1994 as amended by the Finance Act, 2005 - Held that:- The first petitioner is admittedly a members’ club. The concept of mutuality applies with regard to transactions between a member and the members’ club. A members club is considered as a one legal entity of the member involved irrespective of the member of members or the legal entity that the members seek to clothe the club with, in so far transactions between the club and its members are concerned. When food or drinks are consumed by a member, this transaction is not considered as a sale by the club to its member as on the anvil of mutuality, a member and the club being the same, a member cannot be said to selling anything to itself for the transaction to qualify as a sale - the first petitioner being a members’ club, it is not liable to pay the service tax under the Finance Act, 1994 as amended by the Finance Act, 2005.
The issue as to whether a members’ club is liable to pay service tax under Sections 65, 66 and 67 of the Finance Act, was considered by the Jharkhand High Court. In Ranchi Club Limited [2012 (6) TMI 636 - JHARKHAND HIGH COURT] it has held that, a members’ club is not liable to pay the same - there is no reason as to why a view contrary to that of Ranchi Club Ltd. is required to be taken in the facts of the present case.
The authorities will not proceed with the show cause notice which is a subject matter of the interim application - petition allowed.
-
2017 (9) TMI 1674 - CESTAT KOLKATA
Refund of Service tax paid erroneously - principles of natural justice - Held that:- The appellant contended that the said amount was paid from its own source under reverse charge mechanism. Both the authorities below had not examined this issue - the matter is remanded to the Adjudicating Authority to decide afresh - appeal allowed by way of remand.
-
2017 (9) TMI 1671 - SC ORDER
Levy of tax on state police - Security Agency Service - Section 65(105)(w) read with Section 65(94) of the Finance Act, 1994 - The decision in the case of THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF POLICE JODHPUR, SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE AND SERVICE TAX, JAIPUR [2016 (12) TMI 289 - CESTAT NEW DELHI] contested - Held that:- The decision in the above case upheld - there is no reason to interfere with the impugned order(s) - appeal dismissed.
-
2017 (9) TMI 1661 - CESTAT BANGALORE
Withdrawal of appeal - Held that:- Considering the grounds taken in the miscellaneous applications, I allow the applications - appeal dismissed as withdrawn.
-
2017 (9) TMI 1635 - CESTAT BANGALORE
Penalty u/s 78 - Appellant had not discharged the Service Tax on the amount received as charges towards manpower recruitment or supply agency services - Held that: - in the absence of any correspondence with the department and in the absence of any plausible reason for not discharging the service tax liability in time despite being a Unit registered with the service tax Commissionerate, all reasoning put forthwith by the Appellant would not carry the case any further, as Appellant being an Assessee in the organized sector should have known the law better than anyone else - penalty upheld - appeal dismissed - decided against appellant.
-
2017 (9) TMI 1614 - CESTAT MUMBAI
Repair and maintenance of road - Section 73 of the Finance Act, 1994 introduced by Section 97 and 98 of the Finance Act, 2012 - Held that: - the charging provision of Section 66 was not made applicable to Repair and Management of roads during the period on and from the 16th days of June, 2005 to the 26th day of July, 2009. Such fact remains undisputed by the Revenue since the period of impugned activity pertained to the exempted period - appeal allowed.
Land Development charges - whether taxed under the heading ‘Management Consultancy Services’? - scope of SCN - Held that: - It does not appeal to common sense how the receipt sought to be taxed as land development service charge can be converted into the taxing entry Management Consultancy in the adjudication. This establishes that adjudication travelled beyond show-cause notice - demand set aside.
Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.
-
2017 (9) TMI 1605 - CESTAT, MUMBAI
Rejection of declaration made under VCES, 2013 - Held that: - From reading of the scheme, it appears that there is no appellate remedy provided therein as enacted by the Finance Act, 2013. In absence of such remedial provision, the appeal is not maintainable in Tribunal for which, that is dismissed.
-
2017 (9) TMI 1563 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Refund of unutilized credit - rejection on the ground of nexus with finished output - Held that: - reliance placed in the case of Commissioner of C.Ex. Nagpur Versus Ultratech Cement Ltd. [2010 (10) TMI 13 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT], where it was held that the cost of any input service that forms a part of the cost of the final product, then Credit of Service Tax paid on such input services would be allowable - the input services have been availed of by the Respondent herein in the course of its business of providing outward services and hence, the Respondent is to refund claim of CENVAT Credit lying in its account due to export of service - refund allowed - appeal dismissed - decided against Revenue.
-
2017 (9) TMI 1562 - DELHI HIGH COURT
Condonation of delay - Held that: - the application is allowed and the delay of 33 days in filing the appeal is condoned.
Rectification of mistake - Held that: - the cause title of Appeal No.ST/2258/2012 CU(DB) before the CESTAT will be read as - Commissioner of Service Tax, Delhi Versus “M/s. L. R. Sharma & Co. Respondent”.
Appeal disposed off.
-
2017 (9) TMI 1561 - CESTAT MUMBAI
Franchisee Service - Levy of service tax - Revenue has issued a show cause notice it was culminated into adjudication order wherein it was held that the arrangement between the appellant and educational institute is of franchise agreement accordingly the franchise fee is liable for service tax - interpretation of statute - Penalty - Held that: - as per the agreement, the appellant is providing the technical school of education as well as their brand name Podar Jumbo Kids to the franchisee against which the appellant is collecting the franchise fee - Tribunal correctly held that as per the agreement all the four ingredients of the definition of Franchise are fulfilled accordingly the service was classified as franchise service.
There was no doubt regarding the classification of service as franchise service therefore there was no reason to interpret differently by the appellant - penalty upheld - appeal dismissed - decided against appellant.
-
2017 (9) TMI 1560 - CESTAT MUMBAI
Import of services - reverse charge - classification of services not done - non-levy of service tax - appellant operating in India is the recipient of online information and database access and/or retrieval services - reverse charge mechanism - Held that: - where section 66A of Finance Act, 1994 is sought to be invoked, the classification of the service must necessarily be dealt with in concatenation with identification of the recipient. The impugned order has failed to so and is liable to be set aside on that count itself.
the adjudicating authority has transposed the transactions onto a portion of the definition in section 65(75) and section 65(105)(zh) of Finance Act, 1994 without any discussion to identify the appellant as the recipient of the service and, in accordance with the special provisions of section 66A, the deemed provider of the service for liability to tax. This is an essential requirement considering the manner in which section 66A has been enacted as a deviation from the general norm in section 66 of Finance Act, 1994.
It would appear to us that the tenor of the various decisions handed down by the Tribunal, and cited by the rival sides, have not been appreciated for the valorous attempts to clarify this much-misinterpreted provision of Finance Act, 1994. It, therefore, devolves upon us to enlighten both disputants and, at the same time, provide ourselves with that steady and unwavering beam within which we will find the resolution to this dispute.
The attempt in the present dispute was to hold the Indian branch of a foreign entity liable to tax on consideration paid to an overseas entity arising from contractual relationship of the foreign headquarters of the appellant with CRS/GDS operators outside the country. The thread of provider-recipient relationship as interpreted by Tribunal in the several decisions is unwavering and constant - demand set aside - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.
-
2017 (9) TMI 1559 - CESTAT MUMBAI
100% EOU - Refund of unutilised Credit - rejection on the ground of nexus and time limitation - Held that: - In the present case the appellant is a 100% EOU and exporting their entire service and there is no domestic sale of the service. In such case the entire Cenvat Credit which is availed is eligible for refund to the appellant - the refund claim cannot be denied on merit.
Time Limitation - Held that: - the input received during the period 16/05/2008 to 31/03/2010 for which the refund claim was filed on 24/04/2012 - refund is admissible only for a period for one year prior to 24/04/2012 attributed to export made during that period - the appellants are entitled for the refund claim of accumulated Cenvat Credit attributed to the export made during the last one year from the date of file, i.e. 24/04/2012, Cenvat Credit relatable to the export prior to one year is time barred.
The adjudicating authority should re-quantify the refund - appeal allowed by way of remand.
-
2017 (9) TMI 1558 - CESTAT MUMBAI
Banking & Financial Services - amount paid by the Appellant as fee/ charges to service providers - revenue neutrality - time limitation - Held that: - on the issue of Revenue Neutrality, the said defence was not taken by the Appellant before the lower authorities so that this aspect cannot be ascertained - This aspect of revenue neutrality also requires to be verified from the factual matrix of the present case.
Extended period of limitation - Held that: - the adjudicating authority has invoked the extended period of limitation for demanding service tax from the appellant by holding that they had suppressed vital information with the intention to evade payment of tax - this issue was also not considered.
The Appellant should be given a chance to prove their case on ground of revenue neutrality and time bar - appeal allowed by way of remand.
-
2017 (9) TMI 1557 - CESTAT KOLKATA
GTO service - failure to collect and deposit tax - Held that: - the demand was not quantified in the Show Cause Notice as well as in the Adjudication order and therefore, the proceedings cannot stand - appeal dismissed - decided against Revenue.
........
|
