Goods & Services Tax
Service Tax Case Laws

Search ST Case Laws

Keyword

Authority

Court

Section

Appeal No.

Date of Order

Date of Order

Judge

Favouring

Login/Subscribe to get access. Plan starts from Rs. 3500/-  Subscribe Now

Court: CESTAT Ahmedabad   Date of Order: 2015-12-04

Heard both sides. The learned Counsel for the appellants submits that they are 100% EOU, have availed CENVAT credit on input and input services in or in relation to providing output services. As they were exporting the entire services, they had not utilised the CENVAT credit availed. Therefore, they sought refund of the accumulated CENVAT credit. Revenue has rejected their claims on the grounds that the said claim were filed after the time-limit of one year prescribed under Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The learned Counsel submits that the said time-limit is not applicable in the present case. His contention is that Section 11B is applicable only to the refunds of duty and interest; whereas refund of CENVAT credit is governed by Rule 5 of Cenvat Credit Rules which has not prescribed any time-limit. He also contends that they have filed the refund claims within one year of the quarter-ending, pertaining to the quarter for which the refund claims are made. He also relied upon case laws, especially the decision of the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of CCE. & Cus., Surat vs. Swagat Synthetics'2008 (232) ELT 413 (Guj.). He also filed written compilation. His alternate submission is that the relevant dates could be taken as the date of export invoice. He relied upon the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Apotex Research Pvt. Limited & others vs. CCE. & ST, CC Bangalore'2014-TIOL-1836-CESTAT-BANG


Court: CESTAT Ahmedabad Date of Order: 2015-12-04

Revenue has filed this appeal aggrieved by the impugned Order-in-Appeal wherein the Commissioner (Appeals) has held that the respondents are eligible for CENVAT credit of service tax paid by the Banking and other Financial Service provider, by holding that the same is covered by the definition of input service as the appellants are utilising the said service in connection with their export activities of finished excisable goods.


Court: CESTAT Ahmedabad   Date of Order: 2015-12-04

The appellant herein M/s. Perfect Securities Services is a registered service provider for the services under the category of Security Services. During audit by the audit party of the department, it was found that appellant had not filed ST-3 returns for the period from October 2004 to March 2005 and April 2005 to September 2005 and they have also not paid the service tax dues pertaining to the said period. On the same being pointed out by the audit party, the appellants paid the service tax of Rs. 22,87,217/- and interest amounting to Rs. 43,350/- on different dates. A show cause notice dated 16.02.2006 was issued to the appellant and was adjudicated by the Additional Commissioner. The original adjudicating authority confirmed the demand of Rs. 22,22,355/- under Section 73(i) with direction to adjust the payment of tax made by them and ordered to recover the interest on delayed payment of service tax under Section 75 of the Finance Act, 1994. He also imposed penalties under Sections 76, 77 and 78 of the Finance Act, 1994. The appellants filed an appeal with the Commissioner (Appeals). The Commissioner (Appeals) vide impugned Order-in-Appeal confirmed the order of the original adjudicating authority. Aggrieved by the same, the appellant is before us.


Court: CESTAT Ahmedabad Date of Order: 2015-08-21

The Learned Advocate on behalf of the applicant submits that the delay was caused due to financial difficulties, as the applicant failed to arrange the money for making the mandatory deposits for filing appeal. He further submits that merit of the appeal is in favour of the appeallant. The Tribunal granted stay to other applicants on the identical issues. He referred the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of'Pirayam Subhash [2015 (39) S.T.R. 540 (S.C.)].'He further submits that the delay of filing appeal may be viewed leniently


Court: CESTAT Ahmedabad Date of Order: 2015-08-15

The brief facts in this appeal are that on 30.06.2011, the officers of DGCEI while investigating a case against M/s. Dosti Fabricators came across the appellants who owned three barges and two tugs and were engaged in providing these barges and tugs on hire basis to various customers. Subsequently, a show cause notice F. No. DGCEI/AZU/36-88/2011-12/4020 dated 22.11.2011 was issued to the appellants on the ground that the appellants have not paid appropriate service tax in time. The adjudicating authority vide OIO dated 31.01.2013 confirmed the demand of service tax of Rs. 30,93,660/- and appropriated the amount of Rs. 21,84,494/- already by them. He also confirmed interest and appropriated an amount of Rs. 2,15,617/- already paid by them. He also imposed penalty of Rs. 5,000/- under Section 77 of the Finance Act, 1994 and a penalty of equivalent tax of Rs. 30,93,660/- on the appellants. Being aggrieved by the said OIO dated 31.01.2013, the appellants preferred appeal to the Commissioner (Appeals), who rejected the appeal filed by the appellant vide OIA No. RJT-EXCUS-000-APP-28-14-15 dated 13.05.2014. Hence, the appellants are before us.


Court: CESTAT Ahmedabad Date of Order: 2015-08-15

When the matter is taken up for the hearing on date, none appears for the appellants. There is no request for adjournment. The Learned Authorised Representative submits that number of opportunities have been granted to the appellants and when the matter came up on 05/06/2015, this Hon'ble bench had granted one more opportunity as a last chance and adjourned the matter to 03/07/2015 and had directed Registry to issue notice.


Court: CESTAT Ahmedabad Date of Order: 2015-04-15

Sh. Jigar Shah (Advocate) appearing on behalf of the appellant argued that his clients are registered under Section 65 (105) (zzzzg) of the Finance Act, 1944 for paying Service Tax on the Services provided by them under'Commodity Exchange' Services. That appellant was under the bonafide belief that service tax under Section 65 (105) (zzzzg) is not payable for the Admission Fees Annual subscription Charges recovered from the customers. That, as soon as the interpretation was brought to the notice of the appellant by the Revenue, the entire service tax on'Admission Fees' and'Annual subscription Charges' was paid by the appellant, alongwith interest and even before the issue of show case notice. That appellant is not contesting the issue on merits but penalties can not be imposed as per the provision of Section 80 of the Finance Act, 1994


Court: CESTAT Ahmedabad Date of Order: 2015-04-10

Shri M.R. Shah (Tax Consultant) appearing on behalf of the appellant gave a detailed background of the appeals. It was his argument that the amount deposited with the Revenue has to be considered as a deposit as no service tax was leviable on appellant's activities and the time limit prescribed under Section 11-B of the Central Excise Act, 1944, will not be applicable. He also produced copy of orders passed by Adjudicating Authority in remand proceeding. Learned Consultant strongly argued that orders passed by the first appellate authority are not sustainable in view of, interalia, the following case laws


Court: CESTAT Ahmedabad Date of Order: 2015-04-10

This appeal has been filed by the appellant with respect to OIA No PJ/619/EDR-11/2012-13 dtd 26.3.2013. The issue involved in the present proceedings is whether the penalties under Section 76 and 78 of the Finance Act 1994 are imposable upon the appellants when the entire amount of service tax leviable have been paid by the appellant alongwith interest, before the issue of show cause notice. First Appellate Authority held the penalties imposed upon the appellant appropriate because tax amounts were recovered from the customers.


Court: CESTAT Ahmedabad Date of Order: 2015-04-10

This appeal has been filled by appellant against Order-in-Appeal No. CCEA ' SRT- 1/ SSP ' 350/ 2012-13 Dated 14.02.2013 under which the Order of the Adjudicating authority rejecting the refund claim of Rs. 9,33,373/- was upheld. The appeal was rejected on the ground that appellant was not eligible to exemption vide Notification No. 17/2009-ST dated 07.7.2009 and that condition of Notification No. 9/2009-ST dated 03.3.2009 was not fulfilled.