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: 2015-06-02

The learned Authorised Representative on behalf of the Revenue in the earlier occasion, nobody turned up on behalf of the Applicant. On perusal of the records, we find that on 01.09.2014, 25.11.2014, 25.02.2015, 21.04.2015 and today (i.e. 02.06.2015), nobody appeared on behalf of the Appellant. It seems that the Appellant is not interested to proceed in the matter. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed for non-prosecution


Court: CESTAT Ahmedabad   Date of Order: 2015-07-28

After hearing both the sides and on perusal of the records, we find that the appellants were engaged in the manufacture of Refined Edible Oil and export of the final product through their various branches all over the country. The main contention of the learned Advocate is that the appellant paid the service tax in respect of activities of various branches. They claimed refund of service tax of the services availed by various branches for export of goods. He fairly submits that the adjudicating authority had not given proper opportunity of hearing before passing the order. It is contended that the Commissioner (Appeals) had proceeded on the basis that Centralised Registration certificate has not incorporated the names of all the branches


Court: CESTAT Ahmedabad   Date of Order: 2015-07-28

After hearing both the sides and on perusal of the records, we find that the appellant during the period October 2005 to March 2006 paid an amount of Rs. 2,97,103/- under the category of'Construction Services'. The main contention of the learned Advocate on behalf of the appellant is that the appellant is Builder and had done construction himself and therefore no service tax is leviable thereon. He drew attention of the Bench to the Board clarification by F.No. 354/28/2007-TRU dated 23.08.2007. On perusal of the records, we find that the appellant, by letter dated 27.08.2006 informed the department that they are engaged contractor for construction of building. By the impugned order, the Commissioner (Appeals) observed that the appellant have not provided the address of the Contractor in spite of repeated reminders


Court: CESTAT Ahmedabad   Date of Order: 2015-07-28

The relevant facts of the case, in brief, are that the Respondent was holding the Service Tax registration under the category of'Consulting Engineer'and'Business Auxiliary Service'. A show cause notice dated 25.01.2007 was issued proposing the demand of service tax of Rs. 11,38,072/- alongwith interest and to impose penalties under various provisions of Finance Act, 1994 for the period from 01.7.2003 to 09.09.2004. The Respondent took a stand before the adjudicating authority that they received commission from the principal for causing the sale of their product and other incidental activities. It was stated that they were eligible for the benefit of exemption Notification No. 13/2003-ST dated 20.6.2003. The Respondent also contested the demand on limitation. The adjudicating authority confirmed the demand of service tax alongwith interest and also imposed penalties under various sections. The Commissioner (Appeals) set-aside the adjudication order and allowed the appeal filed by the Respondent on merit


Court: CESTAT Ahmedabad   Date of Order: 2015-07-28

After hearing the learned Authorised Representative and on perusal of the records, we find that the adjudicating authority confirmed the demand of service tax of Rs. 15,33,915/- alongwith interest and imposed penalties for the period from April 2000 to June 2004, for the services provided under the category of Tour Operator, under Section 66 of the Finance Act, 1994. The Commissioner (Appeals) set-aside the adjudication order to the extent of three vehicles would not fall within the meaning and scope of Tourist Vehicles, under Section 65 (114) of the Act, 1994. Therefore, the services provided by the Respondent to M/s. JCT Electronics in the subject contracts by utilising the said three vehicles, would not fall within the meaning of Tour Operator. The demand of service tax in remaining vehicles, the matter was remanded to the adjudicating authority to ascertain the fact position in respect of the said vehicles and to pass order


Court: CESTAT Ahmedabad   Date of Order: 2015-07-21

Shri T.K. Sikdar, learned Authorised Representative appearing on behalf of the Revenue argued that the services of pollution control are availed by the Respondent beyond the place of removal and the word'activity'relating to business has been omitted from the definition of'input'services under Rule 2(l) of CENVAT Credit Rules 2004 during the relevant period. It was his case that the case law of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Indian Farmers Fertilizer Co-op. Ltd Vs CCE Ahmedabad'1996 (86) ELT 177 (SC) is not applicable. It was also argued by the learned Authorised Representative that mere inclusion of certain expenses in the assessable value of the final product will not make CENVAT Credit admissible as per law laid down by Apex Court in the case of Maruti Suzuki Ltd [2009 (240) ELT 641 (SC)]


Court: CESTAT Ahmedabad   Date of Order: 2015-07-21

Shri Vipul Khandhar, learned Chartered Accountant appearing on behalf of the Appellant argued that his clients are engaged in Technical Testing & Analysis, Scientific & Technical Consultancy services, for which they are registered with Service Tax Department. It was his case that the Appellant is undertaking certain clinical research on human beings. The operations are done in a hospital maintained by the Appellant and such persons identified for clinical research are called'subjects'. That during the course of research, these persons are supplied free food, which is provided by M/s Respite Hotels Pvt.Ltd Ahmedabad and Service Tax is paid and entire expenses are incurred by the Appellant. He furnished copies of certain invoices raised by the service provider over the appellant. On a specific query from the Bench whether the documents furnished before the Bench, were produced before the lower authorities, learned Chartered Accountant submitted that these documents were not produced before the lower authorities


Court: CESTAT Ahmedabad   Date of Order: 2015-07-21

Shri Vipul Khandhar, learned Chartered Accountant appearing on behalf of the Appellant argued that the Appellant is engaged in providing Cleaning services as defined under Section 65(24)(b) of Finance Act, 1994 to various clients. That an enquiry was initiated against the Appellant by Department and Appellant was required to pay Service Tax from 2006-2008 to 2011-2012. That for the period before 2010-2011, when Appellant was not registered, there was huge liability of past dues, which was paid by the Appellant from the current receipts from the service recipients. That for the year 2010-2011 and 2011-2012, inspite of Service Tax being recovered from the customers, Appellant could not pay the Service Tax because the revenue generated in these financial years was utilized for making Service Tax liability of the earlier years. That the entire amount of Service Tax alongwith interest was paid by the Appellant by the time the present appeals were filed. It was the case of the learned Chartered Accountant that the Appellant is not contesting the Service Tax liability alongwith interest but are claiming waiver of penalty under Section 80 of Finance Act, 1994 as there was financial hardship. He also produced certain letters issued by Income Tax Department indicating that payments from their clients were directly taken by the Income Tax Department as they were not able to pay the income tax dues


Court: CESTAT Ahmedabad   Date of Order: 2015-07-24

The relevant facts of the case, in brief, are that M/s. Ambuja Cements (unit of Gujarat Ambuja Cements Ltd) that appellant, herein were engaged in the manufacture of excisable goods viz., Cement and Clinker classifiable under Chapter 25 of the Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act 1985 and availing cenvat credit on inputs, capital goods and input service in terms of Cenvat Credit Rule 2004. A show cause notice dtd 30.3.2006 was issued proposing to deny cenvat credit of Rs 18,26,378/- alongwith interest and to impose penalty for the period from April 2005 to October 2005. By the impugned order, the Adjudicating Authority confirmed the denial of cenvat credit alongwith interest and also imposed penalty of Rs 10,000/- on the appellant


Court: CESTAT Ahmedabad   Date of Order: 2015-07-14

After hearing both the sides and on perusal of records, we find that the demand of Service tax was raised under the category of'Tour Operator Service'for the period 2002-2003. The Adjudicating authority confirmed the demand of tax alongwith interest. The Commissioner (Appeals) set aside the adjudication order on the ground that the respondent produced the certificate from RTO as the vehicle was not tourist vehicle. Notification No 20/2009-ST dtd 7.7.2009 exempted the taxable service referred to in sub-clause (n) of clause (105) of section 65 of the Finance Act provided or to be provided to any person, by a tour operator having a contract carriage permit for inter-state or intrastate transportation of passengers, excluding tourism, conducted tours, charter or hire service, from whole of the service tax leviable thereon under Section 66 of the said Finance Act 1994. By Finance Act 2011(Act No 8 of 2011 dtd 8.4.2011) the said notification was given retrospective effect from 1st day of April, 2000. The relevant portion of the Finance Act is reproduced below