|
Advanced Search Options
Service Tax - Case Laws
Showing 241 to 260 of 323 Records
-
2018 (2) TMI 408 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
Voluntary Compliance Encouragement Scheme (VCES) - rejection of declaration on the ground that the tax payable and due to the petitioner as declared under the said VCES, 2013 was paid before the date of promulgation itself on 10.5.2013 - Held that: - the petitioner admittedly has complied with all the relevant conditions of VCES, 2013 and therefore, its declaration, prima facie, deserved to be accepted and has been wrongly rejected by the respondent – Assistant Commissioner - there is no prohibition in VCES, 2013 itself for the Service Tax demand due, and payable for the period October 2007 to December 2012, which was due and payable as on 1.3.2013, and the same could be paid between the period 1.3.2013 and 10.5.2013 , when the VCES Scheme itself was announced. In the absence of any such prohibition, the respondent–Assistant Commissioner could not reject the Declaration solely on this ground.
This Court is clearly of the opinion that the rejection of the Declaration of the petitioner under VCES, 2013 by the respondent– Assistant Commissioner was unjustified and cannot be sustained and the Writ Petition therefore deserves to be allowed and the same is accordingly allowed - the matter is remanded back to the said Assistant Commissioner, Mangalore for passing a fresh order in accordance with law - petition allowed by way of remand.
-
2018 (2) TMI 407 - CESTAT MUMBAI
Valuation - includibility - amount recovered for repair/re-winding of the defective stators in their bills for repair of compressors - Held that: - the appellants are not denying the use of the repaired stators for repair of compressors without which such repairing process is not completed As such the stator is an inputfor rendering the output service and therefore the cost of the input is to be added to the value of the taxable service.
Extended period of limitation - Penalty u/s 78 - Held that: - the dispute in the instant case regarding valuation was not a matter which should have created any doubt in the mind of the appellant - non-inclusion of said value was obviously with intent to evade payment of duty and thus imposition of penalty and invocation of extended period of limitation are justified.
Appeal dismissed - decided against appellant.
-
2018 (2) TMI 406 - CESTAT MUMBAI
Scope of business support services - amounts were used towards getting the motorcars registered and the excess amounts received were retained by the appellants - Held that: - In the case in hand, the amount collected as extra charges is not for any of the services which are enumerated in the said definition. Therefore, the definition of business support service will not cover the services rendered by the appellant even in the residual category of other transaction processing - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.
-
2018 (2) TMI 405 - CESTAT, ALLAHABAD
Refund claim of service tax paid earlier - place of provision of service - Fashion Designing Services - proviso to Rule 3(ii) of Taxation of Services (Provided from Outside India & Received in India) Rules, 2006 - Held that: - through the said Rule 3(ii) of Taxation of Services (Provided from Outside India & Received in India) Rules, 2006 certain services were deemed to have been performed in India even if they were partly performed in India and partly performed from outside India and that the service received by the respondent was covered under Rule 3(ii) of Taxation of Services (Provided from Outside India & Received in India) Rules, 2006 - there is nothing on record to show that the service or a part of the service has been performed in India - refund allowed - appeal dismissed - decided against Revenue.
-
2018 (2) TMI 404 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD
Refund of Service Tax paid on the goods exported - rejection on the ground of time limitation - Held that: - the refund claim submitted subsequently with the proper authority enclosing therewith almost the same set of documents/evidences in support of the claim albeit with reduced claim, cannot be considered as barred by limitation.
Rejection of refund also on the ground that sufficient evidences were not produced in establishing the fulfillment of conditions laid down under the said Notification - Held that: - the Appeal is required to be remanded to the Adjudicating authority for the purpose of verification of the documents on record.
Appeal allowed by way of remand.
-
2018 (2) TMI 403 - CESTAT CHENNAI
Business Auxiliary Service - Short payment of service tax - whether reimbursable expenses are includible in the taxable value or not? - Held that: - The facts make it clear that the amount impugned is reimbursable expenses on which service tax has been demanded - issue whether reimbursable expenses are to be included in the taxable value or not is settled by the decision in the case of Commissioner of Service Tax Versus M/s. Sangamitra Services Agency [2013 (7) TMI 862 - MADRAS HIGH COURT], where it was held that the amounts are not to be included in assessable value - demand set aside - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.
-
2018 (2) TMI 402 - CESTAT CHENNAI
Liability of service tax - installation charges collected - benefit of N/N. 12/2003 - Held that: - The amount received for such services are taxable services - the appellant has no case on merits.
Penalty - Held that: - there is a clear finding by the Commissioner (Appeals) observing that it is sufficiently established that reasonable cause is made out by the appellant for non-payment of service tax during the disputed period. This was because there was much confusion as to whether installation charges and carriage fees are to be subjected to levy of service tax - penalty set aside by invoking section 80.
Appeal allowed in part.
-
2018 (2) TMI 401 - CESTAT CHENNAI
Refund of service tax paid mistakenly - main ground for rejection of the entire refund claim is that the appellants have not furnished sufficient documents to establish that the incidence of duty has not been passed on to another - Held that: - we may deem it fit to remand the matter to the original authority to consider the issue of unjust enrichment. The adjudicating authority shall give the appellants a chance of personal hearing as well as sufficient time to produce documents.
Time limitation - Held that: - as per mandate of Constitution no tax can be levied or collected without the authority of law and since the Commissioner (Appeals) has held that appellants are not liable to pay tax, the payment having been made under mistake, the refund claim is not barred by limitation.
Appeal allowed by way of remand.
-
2018 (2) TMI 400 - CESTAT CHENNAI
Cleaning activity services - services of cleaning, housekeeping and other general conservancy services to BSNL and Trichy Airport - Held that: - There is no allegation that appellants have billed or collected service tax amounts from BSNL or AAI. This being so, we are of the considered opinion that tax liability should be calculated after extending exemption limits available to small service providers and allowing cum tax benefit on the liabilities so arrived at - For the limited purpose of recalculating tax liability, the matter remanded back to the original authority.
Penalty - Held that: - penalties imposed u/s 76 & 78 of the FA are an overkill and will require to be set aside - penalty imposed u/s 77 upheld.
Appeal allowed by way of remand.
-
2018 (2) TMI 399 - CESTAT, ALLAHABAD
Levy of service tax - after Sales Service to the customers during the warranty period - Tax on the materials utilized in providing the service during the warranty period - Held that: - Under the works contract there can be no levy of service tax on the material component which have already been provided in the works contract-Determination of Value Rules. Further, under the Finance Act, 1994 there is no taxing power to tax the material component, in a works contract - appeal dismissed - decided against Revenue.
-
2018 (2) TMI 398 - CESTAT CHENNAI
Valuation - includibility - Whether appellant is liable to pay Service Tax under the category of 'Manpower Recruitment or Supply Agency Service' on the reimbursable expenses namely Wages, Bonus, ESI, Provident Fund, etc.? - Held that: - the issue is settled in the case of Sangamitra Services Agency v. Commissioner of Central Excise [2007 (7) TMI 33 - CESTAT, CHENNAI], where it was held that such expenses are not includible in arriving at the taxable value - demand set aside.
Scope of Manpower Recruitment or Supply Agency Service - Held that: - The definition of 'Manpower Recruitment and Supply Services' during the relevant period used the words 'commercial concern' which was amended with effect from 1-5-2006. The disputed period is from 16-6-2005 to 30-9-2005 - The words 'commercial concern' in the definition was substituted by the words 'any person' only with effect from 1-5-2006. The period involved being prior to 1-5-2006 the appellant succeeds on this ground.
Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.
-
2018 (2) TMI 397 - CESTAT, ALLAHABAD
Cargo Handling service - liability of service tax - whether appellant are liable to Service Tax on handling charges paid separately to the transporter/supplier for handling the molasses within the factory premises of the appellant? - Held that: - as the same have been incurred for activity within the factory of the appellant and the same forms part or valuation of the goods cleared being excisable goods liable to duty, no Service Tax is leviable on the same - demand set aside - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.
-
2018 (2) TMI 369 - CESTAT NEW DELHI
Export of service to foreign principal located in UKProgramme Producer Service - demand on the ground that one of the condition mainly, receipt of consideration in convertible foreign exchange has not been fulfilled in such exports - whether or not appellant received consideration for exported service in convertible foreign exchange? - Held that: - FIRCs did not identify the nature and name of foreign convertible currency - It is manifestly clear that the amount credited to the account of the appellant in India is in consequence of a debit of pound sterling account maintained by participated bank in nostro mechanism in UK. The said debit of foreign exchange by the UK bank and consequent credit in Indian rupee in Indian bank as part of nostro transaction is reported to RBI and necessarily forms part of foreign exchange earning in India - the amount has not reached India from UK in Indian rupees - we find no merit in the findings by the lower authority to the effect that foreign exchange has not been received in convertible foreign currency for export of services by the appellant.
Programme producer service with reference to domestic radio stations to whom the appellant gave various programmes for broadcasting - Held that: - a plain reading of the statutory definition for programme producer service makes it clear that such programme producer should produce programmes on behalf of another person - In the present case, the appellants did not produce programmes for another person. There is no second person at the time of appellant producing the programme which is apparently for self - such transactions are not covered by programme producer service as the appellant did not produce programme for a third party.
Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.
-
2018 (2) TMI 332 - SUPREME COURT
GTA Service - whether the category of “Goods Transport Agency” is exigible to service tax as per Section 65(105) (zzp) and Section 65 (50b) of the Finance Act as well as Rule 2(1)(d)(v) of the Service Tax Rules, 1994? - Held that: - the High Court was required to decide as to whether the services provided by the respondent(s)/assessee(s) herein are covered by the aforesaid definitions. The High Court has not discussed the aforesaid issue - the matter is remitted to the High Court for de novo consideration - appeal allowed by way of remand.
-
2018 (2) TMI 331 - CESTAT CHENNAI
Liability of service tax - amount received for transfer of copyright of programmes to various TV channels amounts to service under the category of "TV or Radio Programme Production service - demand has been raised alleging appellant has assigned their own programme and received consideration - Held that: - There is no evidence placed to show that the appellant has produced the programme on behalf of another person. The appellant produces the programme on its own and after the completion it may or may not be accepted by the channel / broadcasting agency. After production, they have transferred the copy right in the programme temporarily to the broadcasting agency. Such transfer of copy right does not attract levy of service tax under "TV or Radio Programme Production Service" - the demand under programme production services is unsustainable.
Short payment of service tax - it was alleged that appellant has not correctly paid service tax on the gross amount realized for discharging service tax on the output service "Sale of space or time for Advertisement" service by including the three components, variable cost, fixed cost and profit sharing - Held that: - appellant has strongly argued that from the beginning itself, the appellant has contended that they have been discharging service tax including on all the three components; that the same has not been considered by the authorities below - the issue has to be verified and for this limited purpose, the matter requires to be remanded to the adjudicating authority - matter on remand.
CENVAT credit - service tax paid on telecasting fee which was paid for broadcasting tele serials - Held that: - the telecasting charges paid are used for providing the said output service of 'Sale of space or time for Advertisement' - it was already found that the appellant is not liable to discharge service tax under the category of programme producing service - The contention of the department that programmes are telecast after production of the serials etc. is flimsy and not supported by any legal basis - credit allowed.
Appeal allowed in part and part matter on remand.
-
2018 (2) TMI 330 - CESTAT ALLAHABAD
100% EOU - time limitation - whether the appellant is liable to pay service tax under Reverse Charge Mechanism of services imported from outside India and received in India rendered by the service provider located outside India? - Held that: - the SCN is barred by limitation, as the appellant had taken a categorical stand, as early as on 06/03/2014 that they are not liable to pay service tax with respect to services received from outside India and most of such services were received and consumed outside India - SCN dated 16.10.2015 is not maintainable and the same is hit by limitation - Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.
-
2018 (2) TMI 329 - CESTAT BANGALORE
Refund claim - payment under protest - service tax paid on service of blending and bottling of IMFL on behalf of their clients was not taxable under Business Auxiliary Service as clarified by Ministry of Finance vide F.No. 249/1/2006 CX.4 dated 27.10.2008 - denial on the ground of time limitation and unjust enrichment - Held that: - Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of Sarita Handa Exports (P) Ltd. [2010 (9) TMI 254 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT] has held that any refund application beyond period specified under 11B of the CEA should not be entertained unless refund is as a consequence of declaration of a provision as unconstitutional - Though the learned counsel for the assessee has submitted that the entire amount which is claimed as refund was paid under protest but it is not clear from the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) that whether the entire amount which is sought to be claimed as refund was paid under protest or not.
This case is required to be remanded back to the original authority to examine two things: - (a) Whether the entire service tax was paid under protest or not? - (b) the aspect of unjust enrichment should also be considered by the original authority in view of the documents produced by the assessee along with the certificate of CA certifying that incidence has not been passed on to the client.
Appeal allowed by way of remand.
-
2018 (2) TMI 328 - CESTAT BANGALORE
Refund claim - Due to ignorance of law, the appellant had paid service tax on Inward Legal Services rendered by the advocates for the period March 2012 to March 2013 under reverse charge mechanism - N/N. 25/2012-ST dated 20.06.2012 - denial on the ground of time limitation.
Held that: - the findings of the Commissioner (Appeals) that the claim is barred by limitation is not sustainable in law as the lower authority has already held that the refund claim is not barred by limitation.
The appellant's case is squarely covered by N/N. 25/2012 which exempts service tax levy on advocate services received by business entities with turnover of less than ₹ 10 lakhs. Once an activity is exempted under Section 66B in terms of Exemption N/N. 25/2012, the question of invoking N/N. 30/2012 issued under Section 68(2) dealing with reverse charge mechanism does not arise at all.
The Education Guide dated 20.06.2012 issued by CBEC has also stated that exemption is available to business entities with less than turnover of ₹ 10 lakhs in respect of service tax payable under reverse charge mechanism.
Matter remanded for verification of documents - appeal allowed by way of remand.
-
2018 (2) TMI 327 - CESTAT BANGALORE
Renting of Immovable Property Service - service tax short paid - extended period of limitation - Held that: - there was a doubt regarding the levy of tax on Renting of Immovable Property and it was set right by retrospective amendment of Finance Act 2010 - assessee cannot be accused of suppression of material facts and therefore, extended period cannot be invoked.
Reliance placed in the case of Commissioner of Central Excise & Service Tax, Allahabad. Versus M/s. Trimurti Build Tech Private Ltd. [2016 (6) TMI 1175 - CESTAT ALLAHABAD], where it was held that No case of any contumacious conduct and/or suppression on the part of the respondent is made out. It is further held that the appellant have rightly paid Service Tax on receipt basis.
The assessee is liable to pay the rent on immovable property for the normal period along with interest and invoking of the extended period is set aside - appeal allowed in part.
-
2018 (2) TMI 326 - CESTAT BANGALORE
Refund claim - service tax paid on the transaction between the two Divisions of the legal entity, which was not required to be paid - denial on the ground that the assessment becomes final and was not challenged in appeal - Held that: - the decision of the Rajasthan High Court in the case of Central Office Mewar Palace Org. Vs. Union of India [2008 (10) TMI 47 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT], is squarely applicable in the facts and circumstances of this case, where it was held that tribunal is not justified in rejecting the refund claim on the ground that assessee has not challenged assessment order - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.
....
|
