Goods & Services Tax
Service Tax Case Laws

Search Case Laws





Appeal No.

Date of Order

Date of Order



Login Form

Login/Subscribe to get access. Plan starts from Rs. 400/-  Subscribe Now

Court: CESTAT Kolkata Date of Order: 2018-02-14

On matter being called, none appeared on behalf of the appellants despite notice. The notice have not been received undelivered. No adjournment request has been received inspite of notice of hearing having been given to them well in advance. I also find that the matter has been repeatedly coming up on Board. It seems that the appellants are not interested in persuing the appeals.

Court: CESTAT Bangalore Date of Order: 2018-02-14

These miscellaneous applications for filed by the Revenue for bunching and early disposal of the appeals, which are relating to identical matters. As the appeals itself are taken up for final disposal, these miscellaneous applications are dismissed as infructuous.

Court: CESTAT Bangalore Date of Order: 2018-02-14

Registry has raised objection in this appeal that appellant has not paid 7.5%/10% of the duty confirmed, since this appeal has been filed after the amendment to Section 35F, whereby the appellant is required to deposit 7.5%/10% of the duty confirmed as mandatory requirement for hearing his appeal.

Court: CESTAT Bangalore Date of Order: 2018-02-14

Revenue has filed this appeal against the impugned order dated 10.6.2010 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise & Service Tax (A), wherein the Commissioner (A) allowed the appeal of the respondent-assessee.

Court: CESTAT Chennai Date of Order: 2018-02-09

The appellants were engaged in providing services to cellular phone exporters on behalf of BPL Mobile Cellular Ltd. and were also engaged in collection of bill amounts from the customers and the like for which they receive commission and incentives. Department took the view that the said amounts would constitute taxable income exigible to service tax levied under BAS for the period 01.07.2003 to 09.07.2004 on taxable income of Rs.20,96,145/-. The show cause notice dt. 28.02.2005 issued in this connection culminated in OIO dt. 13.05.2005 where the original authority confirmed demand of Rs.1,67,692/- with interest thereon and also imposed penalties under Section 76, 77 & 78 of the Finance Act, 1994. On appeal, Commissioner (Appeals) vide the impugned Order-in-Appeal No.78/2005-ST dt. 6.10.2005 set aside penalty under Section 78, however did not interfere with the rest of the order of the original authority. Hence this appeal by the appellant.

Court: CESTAT Bangalore Date of Order: 2018-02-09

The present appeal has been filed along with COD application for condonation of delay against the Order-in-Appeal No.40/2013-14 dated 13.11.2013. The application for condonation of delay has been made for condoning the delay of 1370 days. The reason stated in the COD application is that during the period 2011 to 2013, a large number of show-cause notices were issued and orders were passed by various authorities of Central Excise and Service Tax Department demanding service tax under the category of'Rent-a-Cab Operator Scheme service'. Due to the heavy workload, there was confusion and the present appeal was lost sight of and later on, action was taken to file an appeal before CESTAT in spite of the fact that the appeals involving identical issue had been filed before the Commissioner (A) and the Tribunal.

Court: CESTAT Bangalore Date of Order: 2018-02-09

The present appeal along with application for condonation of delay of 192 days has been filed against the Order-in-Appeal No.1/2016-2017 dated 3.1.2017. For the reasons stated in the COD application, we take a liberal view and condone the delay and with the concurrence of both the parties, the appeal itself is taken up for decision on merits.

Court: CESTAT Ahmedabad Date of Order: 2018-02-09

Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the appellant during the relevant period 2005-2006, have been rendering services under the category of construction service for residential complexes and paid service tax for the said period. Later, they discontinued in paying service tax from 2006-2010 on the ground that service tax is not payable on such services. Subsequently, they filed refund claim of Rs. 17,79,759/- between December 2006 to May 2007 claiming that since service tax was not payable during the period 2005-2006 and erroneously being paid by them, therefore, it is refundable. The refund claim was proposed to be denied by issuing Show Cause Notices which later on adjudication have been confirmed. Aggrieved by the said order, they have filed appeals before the Ld. Commissioner (Appeals), who in turn, rejected their appeals. Hence, the present appeals.

Court: CESTAT Ahmedabad Date of Order: 2018-02-09

The facts in brief as narrated by the Ld. for the Revneue are that the appellant are providing'Security Agency Services'during the period 2001-2005 but failed to discharge service tax of Rs. 14,91,466/-. He has further submitted that in the present appeal, the appellant has mainly disputed the value of the taxable services and not challenged the rendering of taxable service or applicability of service tax to the said service. It is his contention that service tax is payable on the gross amount received from the customers as laid down under Section 67 of the Finance Act, 1994. In support, he refers to the judgment of the Kerala High Court in the case of Security Agencies 2012 (28) STR (3) (Ker.) and Rajashtan Ex-Servicemen Ltd. vs CCE Jaipur-I 2017 (52) STR 42 (Tri. Del). However, he fairly submits that penalty has been imposed both under 76 and 78 of the Finance Act, 1994. 

Court: CESTAT Chennai Date of Order: 2018-02-08

The appellant is rendering commercial and industrial construction service as they were constructing foundation bases for towers and buildings of BSNL. On specific intelligence, it was noticed that the appellant is rendering the services with effect from 10.9.2004 but was not discharging the service tax liability and therefore show cause notice dated 24.9.2007 was issued demanding service tax along with interest and also for imposing penalties. After due process of law, the adjudicating authority confirmed the demand along with interest and also imposed penalties under sections 76, 77 and 78 of the Finance Act, 1994. On appeal, the Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the same. Hence this appeal.