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: 2015-05-22

Shri Jigar Shah (Advocate) appearing on behalf of the appellant argued that appellant paid service tax on services of renting of immovable property and sale of space for advertisement provided to M/s. Reliance Industries Limited (service recipient). That service tax on the said services was not leviable as service recipient did not pay any service tax to the appellant. That Reliance Industries Limited has given a certificate dated 06.10.2011 that they have not paid any service tax to the appellant and has also not taken any service credit on that amount. That the Chartered Accountant's certificate dated 05.3.2014 from M/s. Rases Shah & Co., Chartered Accountants, Surat was also placed before the first appellate authority to establish that service tax paid was not recovered from the service recipient. It was his case that service tax payable though included in the invoices issued to the service recipient but the same was not paid by the service recipient. That their case is identical to the case of CCE, Bhavnagar vs. Modest Infrastructure Limited [2011 (24) STR 369 (Tri. Ahmd.)] passed by the Bench, which was upheld by the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of CCE & ST vs. Modest Infrastructure Limited [2013 (31) STR 650 (Guj.)]. He made the Bench go through the orders passed by CESTAT Ahmedabad and Hon'ble High Court to drive home the point that even if the service tax is mentioned in the invoices, unjust-enrichment is not applicable if the service tax mentioned in the invoices has not been received from the service recipient


Court: CESTAT Ahmedabad Date of Order: 2015-05-22

This appeal has been filed by the appellant with respect to OIA No. AHM-SVTAX-000-APP-355 to 356-13-14 dated 20.02.2014 passed by Commissioner (Appeals-IV) Ahmedabad. Issue involved in this case is whether appellant will be eligible to avail the benefit of Cenvat Credit under the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 on Packaging Services, Security Services, Telephone Services & Chartered Account Services


Court: CESTAT Ahmedabad   Date of Order: 2015-05-08

This appeal has been filed by the appellant with respect to OIA No. VAP-EXCUS-000-APP-586-13-14 dated 14.03.2014. Under this OIA, the first appellate authority has confirmed the demand of Rs. 3,02,401/- alongwith interest and imposition of penalty. However, demand of Rs. 43,926/- with respect to duty demand on debit notes was set-aside by the first appellate authority with respect to interest thereon and penalty.


Court: CESTAT Ahmedabad   Date of Order: 2015-05-08

This appeal has been filed by the appellant with respect to OIA No. AHM-SVTAX-000-APP-036-14-15 dated 08.05.2014. The issue involved in the present appeal is imposition of late fee penalty under Section 77 of the Finance Act, 1994 for delay in filing of ST-3 returns for the period October, 2011 to March, 2012 and April, 2012 to June, 2012.


Court: CESTAT Ahmedabad   Date of Order: 2015-05-08

This appeal has been filed by the appellant with respect to OIA No. AHM-SVTAX-000-APP-315-13-14 dated 16.01.2014. The issue involved in the present proceedings is that appellant is receiving'Technical Inspection and Certification Services'from their'Overseas Service Providers'. Appellant paid service tax on reverse charge under Section 66A of Finance Act, 1994 and took credit of the same. Penalties were imposed upon the appellant under Sections 76, 77 and 78 of the Finance Act 1994 by the Adjudicating Authority


Court: CESTAT Ahmedabad   Date of Order: 2015-05-08

This appeal has been filed by the Revenue with respect to OIA No. SUR-EXCUS-002-APP-219-13-14 dated 10.10.2013 under which Commissioner (appeal) has allowed the benefit of Cenvat Credit on GTA services by setting aside the order-in-original dated 19.02.2013 under which the said credit was disallowed on the ground that outward GTA service credit was availed by the appellant with respect to services availed after the place of removal


Court: CESTAT Ahmedabad   Date of Order: 2015-05-01

shri Paritosh Gupta (Advocate) appearing on behalf of the appellant argued that the refund claim was originally filed on 30.11.2011 but the same was returned to the appellant on the same date by the adjudicating authority for submitting certain original documents. The appellant Company submitted the documents on 25.01.2012. However, it was held by the adjudicating authority that after submission of the documents on 25.01.2012, the refund claim was time-barred. It is the case of the appellant that the period of limitation should be counted from 30.11.2011 when the appellant original submitted the refund claim. He relied upon the following case laws on the issue:


Court: CESTAT Ahmedabad   Date of Order: 2015-05-01

When this appeal was called out of hearing, Shri S. Suriyanarayanan, (Advocate) appeared on behalf of the appellant. It was his case that there was delay of 60 days which was condonable by the Commissioner (Appeals), as per existing provisions. He submits that in Para 3 of the OIA dated 05.12.2012, the first appellate authority has given a finding that no one is appeared on behalf of the appellant and no application for adjournment request is received. Learned Advocate brought to the notice of the Bench a letter dated 29.11.2012 under which the Advocate of the appellant requested for adjournment due to unavoidable reasons he is not able appear for personal hearing on 29.11.2012 and another suitable date may be given. The said letter has been acknowledged by the office of the Commissioner (Appeals) Surat on 29.11.2012


Court: CESTAT Ahmedabad   Date of Order: 2015-04-17

This appeal has been filed by the appellant with respect to OIA No. 220/2013 (STC)/ SKS/ Commr (A)/ Ahmedabad dated 18.10.2013/21.10.2013 passed by Commissioner (Appeals), Ahmedabad. The issue involved in the present proceedings is whether the doctrine of unjust-enrichment will be applicable to an amount which was paid by the appellant after the proceedings started but were not shown in the current Assets or Loans/ Advances or receivable in the balance sheets but were shown as expenditure in the books of account


Court: CESTAT Ahmedabad   Date of Order: 2015-03-20

Shri S.R. Dixit (Advocate) appearing on behalf of the appellant argued that the refund claims filed by the appellant in 2004 were rejected by the adjudicating authority under OIO No. III/ST/632 & 633/Refund/2008-2009 which was upheld by first appellate authority under OIA No. Commr(A)/310 & 311/VDR-I/2010 dated 01.11.2010. That appellant's appeal against Order-in-Appeal dated 01.11.2010 was allowed by CESTAT's order No. A/700-701/WZB/AHD/2012 dated 16.05.2012. That as a result of CESTAT's order dated 16.5.2012 adjudicating authority vide order dated 29.8.2012 sanctioned refund claims of Rs. 3,54,694/- and rejected refund of Rs. 1,05,813/-. It was the case of the learned Advocate that appellant is entitled to interest after three months from the date of filing of refund claims till the date of refund claimed were paid to the appellant under Section 11B and Section 11BB of the Central Excise Act, 1944 which has been denied by the lower authorities. He relied upon Hon'ble Supreme Court's judgment in the case of Ranbaxy Laboratories Limited vs. UOI'[2011 (273) ELT 3 (SC)]