Goods & Services Tax
Service Tax Case Laws

Search Case Laws

Keyword

Authority

Court

Section

Appeal No.

Date of Order

Date of Order

Judge

Favouring

Login Form

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

Court: CESTAT Chennai Date of Order: 2017-12-08

The appellants are engaged in providing erection, commissioning and installation services and are registered with the Service Tax Department. On scrutiny of records, it was noticed that the appellants have not discharged the service tax on the amount received from M/s. Vestas RRB for rendering the said services for the period 10.9.2004 to 31.3.2006. Show cause notice was issued demanding short-payment of service tax along with interest as well as for imposing penalty. After due process of law, the original authority confirmed the demand of service tax of Rs.13,74,974/- along with interest and also imposed penalties. The amount already paid by the appellant was appropriated. In appeal, Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the demand, however, reduced the penalty imposed under section 78 of the Finance Act, 1994 from Rs.13,74,974/- to Rs.7 lakhs. Aggrieved, the appellants are now before the Tribunal.


Court: CESTAT Chennai Date of Order: 2017-12-07

M/s. Tower Network, the appellants herein, are providing cable operator services to the subscribers in and around Sriviliputhur. On investigation conducted by the department, it appeared that out of 11,000 connections serviced by them, they had collected subscription at Rs.50/- per month for 5650 connections and Rs.40/- p.m. for 5350 connections; that the amount collected for 11,000 connections per month worked out to Rs.4,96,500/-; that however the amount shown to the department as collection for October 2004 is only Rs.1,37,500/-. Proceedings initiated against the appellant culminated in the order dated 11.1.2008 of original authority confirming demand of Rs.5,68,917/- along with interest thereon and imposition of penalties under sections 76 and 78 of the Finance Act, 1994 for the period October 2002 to July 2005. The appeal filed by the appellant was rejected by the Commissioner (Appeals) vide the impugned order dated 30.9.2009. Hence the appellants are before this forum.


Court: CESTAT Chennai Date of Order: 2017-12-07

Brief facts of the case are that the appellants who are registered dealer for writing and printing paper and copier paper, were also engaged in marketing the products, namely paper bags meant for packing cement on behalf of M/s. APR Packaging Ltd., a unit of M/s. Ballarpur Industries Ltd. on commission basis since 1999. M/s. Ballarpur Industries Ltd. was the main supplier from whom appellant received the goods such as writing and printing paper etc. The appellants were appointed as a representative of M/s. APR Packaging Ltd. for marketing services in relation to sale of paper bags. The activity of such marketing services being a service in relation to promotion or marketing of sale of goods produced or provided by a client would fall under Business Auxiliary Service (BAS) as defined under section 65(19) of the Finance Act, 1994. The said services became exigible to service tax with effect from 9.7.2004 as exemption to the commission agents was granted for the period 1.7.2003 to 8.7.2004 vide Notification No. 13/2003-ST dated 20.6.2003. 


Court: CESTAT Chennai Date of Order: 2017-12-07

The respondents were appointed by Government of Tamil Nadu as one of the vendors for the work of production of Electors Photo Identity Cards (EPIC) in various districts of Tamil Nadu. The work of EPIC involves taking the photos of voters and putting photo prints in identity cards with the details of the voters name, address, age etc. and laminating the cards. The work undertaken by the respondent appeared to be covered under the definition of'Photography Service'and the department issued show cause notice demanding payment of service tax, interest and also proposing to impose penalties. After due process of law, the adjudicating authority confirmed the demand of Rs.27,59,586/- along with interest and imposed penalties under sections 76, 77 and 78 of the Finance Act, 1994. Aggrieved, the respondents filed appeal before Commissioner (Appeals) who vide the order impugned herein held that the activities undertaken by the respondents would not fall under the category of photography service and set aside the demand. Hence, Revenue is in appeal before this forum. 


Court: CESTAT Chennai Date of Order: 2017-12-04

The brief facts of the case are that the appellants are registered with the Service Tax department under the category of'Man Power Recruitment and Supply Agency service'. During the course of audit, it was noticed that there was difference in the valuation shown in the trial balance for the year 2007-08 and ledger account. An amount of Rs. 3,39,539/- was received by the appellants towards reimbursement of advertisement charges from their client M/s. Watanmal Pvt. Ltd. The department was of the view that these expenses are incurred in providing the taxable service and has to be included in the total value for the purpose of discharging service tax. Show Cause Notice was issued proposing to demand service tax on the said amount to the tune of Rs.41,967/- along with interest and also for imposing penalties. After due process of law, the original authority confirmed the demand along with interest and imposed penalty under Section 76 of the Finance Act, 1994. In appeal, the Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the same. Hence, the appellant is now before the Tribunal.


Court: CESTAT Chennai Date of Order: 2017-12-04

In the above appeal the amount involved is less than Rs.10,00,000/- (Rupees Ten Lakhs only). According to the instruction issued under F.No. 390/Misc./163/2010-JC dated 17.12.2015 in partial modification of the earlier instruction dt. 17/08/2011, monetary limit for filing the appeal before the Tribunal by the Revenue has been fixed at Rs. 10,00,000/- (Rupees Ten Lakhs only). Since the amount involved in this appeal is less than Rs.8,00,000/- (Rupees Eight Lakhs only), the appeal has to be rejected. As regards appeals filed prior to issue of these instructions, Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax, Bangalore Vs. Ranka & Ranka reported in [2012 (284) E.L.T. 185 (Kar.)] has taken a view that the circular is applicable in respect of appeals filed prior to issue of instructions also. Even though the decision relates to Income Tax, it was rendered in respect of a similar circular issued by CBDT. Further CBEC F.No.390/Misc/163/2010-JC dt. 01/01/2016 has clarified that the instructions will apply to appeals pending before High Court and CESTAT. Therefore, the appeal is liable to be rejected and is hereby dismissed. 


Court: CESTAT Chennai Date of Order: 2017-12-06

The appellants are engaged in providing clearing and forwarding agency service. They entered into agreement with M/s.IOCL as clearing and forwarding agent. During the period from 15.12.2004 to 31.10.2006 and October 2006 to March 2007, they received Rs.2,91,000/- per month from IOCL and did not discharge the service tax on said amount. Department was of the view that the said amount is also includible in the total taxable value in respect of C&F Agency services and therefore show cause notices were issued alleging short payment of service tax from the said service. After adjudication the original authority confirmed the demand, interest and also imposed penalties. In appeal, Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the same and hence appellants are now before the Tribunal. 


Court: CESTAT Bangalore Date of Order: 2017-12-06

The learned counsel for the appellant submits that for an earlier period, the learned Commissioner (A) had passed a similar order with a direction to pre-deposit the entire service tax demanded along with 50% of the penalty amount. When the matter reached the Tribunal in appeal, the Tribunal vide Final Order No.20940/2014 dated 30.5.2014 had set aside the impugned order and allowed the matter to be remanded to the Commissioner (A) with a direction to decide the appeal without insisting on pre-deposit. The learned counsel prayed for a similar dispensation in respect of this appeal also inasmuch as the issue is the same.


Court: CESTAT Bangalore Date of Order: 2017-12-06

These three appeals are filed against the common impugned Order-in-Appeal No.70-74/2015 dated 17.7.2015. Early hearing applications have been filed by the respondent, which have been listed today for consideration. After allowing the early hearing application filed by the respondent, we are of the view that the appeals filed by the Revenue can be decided at this stage.


Court: CESTAT Bangalore Date of Order: 2017-12-06

Briefly the facts of the present case are that the appellant is a Government of Kerala undertaking and has got two unit one a mineral separation unit registered as'Mines'under Mines Act and the other Titanium Dioxide Pigment Unit registered as a factory under the Factories Act, 1948. Appellants have been availing CENVAT credit on inputs and input services in accordance with the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004. The Board of Directors of the appellant sanctioned the proposal for expansion work and MECON Ltd., Bangalore was appointed as a consultant for the project expansion work and the appellant executed an agreement on 29.1.2004 with MECON incorporating the terms and conditions for availing its services. Appellant had availed CENVAT credit on the amount paid as consultancy fee to MECON. The Board of Directors subsequently decided to drop the project expansion work and the State Government approved the decision of the Board. Thereafter, the department alleged that the project expansion work was dropped and therefore, the CENVAT credit availed on consultancy services was not having any direct relation with the product manufactured in the present plant. Thereafter, the Department issued a show-cause notice dated 31.3.2009 to the appellant for availing irregular CENVAT credit of Rs.32,32,745/- and Education Cess of Rs.64,656/- along with interest and also proposed penalties. After following the due process of law, the adjudicating authority vide Order-in-Original dated 14.6.2010 confirmed the demand and also imposed Rs.2000/- as penalty under Rule 15. Aggrieved by the said order, appellant filed appeal before the Commissioner (A), who rejected the same vide the impugned order; hence, the present appeal.