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 Ahmedabad Date of Order: 2018-05-02

Ld. Advocate for the appellants submits that there was delay of 29 and 24 days in filing the respective appeals before the Ld. Commissioner (Appeals). She submits that since the Advocate was unavailable due to some personal difficulty, the appeals could not be prepared and filed before the Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) in time. She submits that for the delay at Advocate's end, the client should not be penalized. She further submits that the issues have not been decided on merit. 


Court: CESTAT Ahmedabad Date of Order: 2018-05-02

These five appeals are filed against respective orders in appeal passed by Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals-III) Ahmedabad. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the appellant are 100% EOU engaged in production of export of bauxite. During the relevant period they have used various input services, namely, sample analysis service, port service, CHA service etc., for export of the goods. They claimed refund/ rebate of the service tax paid on these services being used in the export of goods in accordance with Notification No. 41/2012-ST dated 29.06.2012, as amended. Major portion of the refund claims have been allowed to the appellant and the refund amount relating to present appeals have been disallowed by the authorities below on the ground that they have failed to correlate the documents relating to the services received and used in the export of the goods. 


Court: CESTAT Ahmedabad Date of Order: 2018-04-27

The brief facts of the case are that the Superintendents of Police (appellant) is engaged in providing Security Agency Services covered under Section 65 (105)(w) of Finance Act, 1944 without having the registration for the services. As per Section 65(94) of the Finance Act, 1994, Security Agency means any person engaged in the business of rendering services relating to the security of any property, whether movable or immovable, or of any person, in any manner and includes the services of investigation, detection or verification, of any fact or activity, whether of a personal nature or otherwise including the services of providing security personnel. Department demanded the service tax along with penalty. Being aggrieved, the appellant has filed the present appeal.


Court: CESTAT Ahmedabad Date of Order: 2018-04-26

The Delhi Bench of the Tribunal vide Final Order dated 20.01.2011 has held in favour of the assessee-Appellants that the said amount is not taxable. On the other hand, the Ahmedabad Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Housing and Urban Development Coproration Ltd. (HUDCO) vide Final Order dated 25.11.2011 has taken a contrary view by mentioning that pre-payment charges are subject to tax.


Court: CESTAT Ahmedabad Date of Order: 2018-04-26

List revised. None present for the appellant. Shri J. Nagori, learned DR, is present for the Revenue. It shows that the Appellant is not interested to pursue the matter.


Court: CESTAT Ahmedabad Date of Order: 2018-04-26
The appellant being a registered club, is providing various services to its members. On the services, the department has demanded the service tax, but, the Commissioner (Appeals) has allowed the claim of the appellant by observing that the services are based on the principle of mutuality. Being aggrieved, the department has filed the present appeal.


Court: CESTAT Ahmedabad Date of Order: 2018-04-24

List revised. In spite of notice, neither anybody appeared for the assessee-Appellants nor there is any adjournment application on record. Shri A. Mishra, learned DR, is present for the Revenue. From the record, it appears that, in the interest of justice, the matter was adjourned time and again. Hence, it appears that the assessee-Appellants are not interested to pursue the matter.


Court: CESTAT Ahmedabad Date of Order: 2018-04-23

Shri Jigar Shah, learned counsel for the assessee-Appellants, submits that the concerned employee, Shri Devendra J. Dalal, who was looking the accounts & taxation work of the Company, was on leave which caused delay of 56 days in filing the appeal. He made a request that the delay may kindly be condoned in view of the ratio laid down by the jurisdictional High Court in the case of Samudra Alloys Pvt. Ltd. Vs CESTAT, 2017 (12) TMI 968 (Guj) H .


Court: CESTAT Ahmedabad Date of Order: 2018-04-20

It is the contention of the Ld. Chartered Accountant for the appellant that out of the total Cenvat credit amount of Rs. 4,82,589/-, the department co-relating the invoices issued by the service provider to the CHA, M/s Sai Dutta Clearing Agency Private Limited, who inturn, raised invoices of the said services, in favour of the appellant, credit amount of Rs. 4,07,502/- was allowed. However, for the amount of Rs. 75,087/-, the credit was denied as the appellant could not able to co-relate the documents/invoices issued by the service provider to CHA and by CHA to appellant. He submits that now these documents are available and they could co-relate the service tax paid by the service provider to the ones received by them. He prays that the matter may be remanded to the Adjudicating Authority for verification of the documents.


Court: CESTAT Ahmedabad Date of Order: 2018-04-09

Brief facts of the case are that the appellants are engaged in providing the service of Clearing and Forwarding Agent, Business Auxiliary Service, Storage & Warehouse Service, Cargo Handling Service, Consulting Engineering Services, Port Services & Transport of Goods by Road Services. During the course of audit of their records, the Revenue found that the appellant was providing staff to their different related companies and was recovering certain amount of salary from them, Revenue, therefore, felt that the appellant was providing service in the category of'Manpower Recruitment or Supply Agency'to their group Companies. Accordingly, a show cause notice was issued, which was adjudicated, resulting in confirmation of demand of Rs. 12,81,049/-, along with interest and imposition of penalty of Rs. 26,13,340/-. Aggrieved from the said order, the appellants went in appeal. However, the appeal was rejected by the Commissioner (Appeals).