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: 2015-10-09

The appellant herein is before us being aggrieved by the impugned Order-in-Original No. Ref/ST/WD/Vad-II/22/L&T(PPMS)/13-14 dated 06.09.2013, passed by the Assistant Commissioner, Vadodara. This is the second round of litigation and the above mentioned impugned order is the result of earlier remand by the Commissioner (Appeals) to the Adjudicating authority


Court: CESTAT Ahmedabad   Date of Order: 2015-11-27

Heard both sides. Learned Consultant for the appellants submits that the Mediclaim is taken to cover the risk of the employees, who is a major asset of their business and therefore, it should be treated as'Input Service'and the service tax paid on premium paid should be allowed to be taken as CENVAT credit. He sought to rely upon a few decisions of the Tribunal. On the other hand, learned Authorised Representative appearing for the Revenue submits that the Mediclaim is in the nature of welfare measure and is voluntary. The appellant is not statutorily bound to take the same and they are providing it as a welfare measure. He therefore, submits that there is no nexus between the same and the'Output Service'which is'Advertising Service'. He also sought to rely upon case laws in his favour


Court: CESTAT Ahmedabad   Date of Order: 2015-11-27

None appears for the Respondent. Learned Authorised Representative appearing for the Revenue submits that after amendment of Section 35(A) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 from 11.05.2001, the powers to remand is taken away from Commissioner (Appeals). He submits that the impugned order, therefore, is beyond the powers of the Commissioner (Appeals) and cannot be sustained


Court: CESTAT Ahmedabad   Date of Order: 2015-11-20

The appellant herein is a service tax assessee. The appellant paid an amount of Rs. 5,30,820/- in April 2010 by mistake as service tax liability whereas the appellant was liable to pay service tax of Rs. 1,85,783/- only. Realising their mistake, they vide their letter dated 16.07.2010, addressed to the Dy. Commissioner, Service Tax requested to keep the excess amount of Rs. 3,45,037/-, as deposit to be adjusted later against future service tax liability. However, due to no business, subsequent service tax liability arose only in March 2012 and the department adjusted Rs. 1,87,395/-, against the service tax liability which had arisen at that point of time. Since they did not have any business further, they requested to return the balance amount of Rs. 1,57,642/- vide their letter dated 16.07.2012. A show cause notice was issued on 16.10.2012 to show cause why their claim for refund of the said amount should not be rejected. By the impugned Order-in-Original, the Dy. Commissioner, Service Tax sanctioned the refund claim. Revenue thereafter filed an appeal with the Commissioner (Appeals) who decided against the appellant on the ground that refund claim was hit by limitation. Aggrieved by the same, the appellant is before us


Court: CESTAT Ahmedabad   Date of Order: 2015-11-20

The appellant herein is before us aggrieved by the impugned orders of the lower authorities rejecting their refund claim pertaining to amount deposited which were adjusted against demands consequent to audit by department under EA 2000. The audit party looked into reconciliation of the financial statements with ST-3 returns. They allegedly found certain discrepancies during the audit and the appellant also paid certain amount voluntarily. After the audit, the amount paid by the appellant was adjusted against short levy. The appellant did not accept the same and filed refund claim which was rejected by adjudicating authority by the impugned order-in-original, which was upheld by the Commissioner (Appeals). Aggrieved by the same, appellant is before us


Court: CESTAT Ahmedabad   Date of Order: 2015-11-20

The appellant herein is providing services under the category of'Chartered Accountant Services'. Appellants claimed membership fees of the membership in Mumbai Cricket Association, as input service for providing output services, namely'Chartered Accountant Services'. The lower authorities have denied the said claim on merits as well as on procedural issues


Court: CESTAT Ahmedabad   Date of Order: 2015-11-13

The appellant herein is a proprietary concern providing Security Agency Services to their clients from their separate offices located at Ahmedabad, Bangalore, Cochin and Tuticorin. They had taken service tax registration for their unit at Ahmedabad were paying service tax. Their offices situated at other places were managed by their manger. In these locations also they have provided the same Security Agency Services and had collected the service tax on the same but failed to deposit the same to the department. Therefore, the department had issued the impugned show cause notice demanding service tax on the service provided by their office at these locations, which was confirmed by the impugned orders of the lower authorities


Court: CESTAT Ahmedabad   Date of Order: 2015-11-13

The appellant herein is before us in the present appeal praying that they had deposited the pre-deposit amount ordered by the Commissioner (Appeals) on 26.7.2014, in pursuance to the order of Commissioner (Appeals) dated 08.07.2014 for depositing the amount. They communicated the compliance to the office of the Commissioner (Appeals) vide their letter dated 11.08.2014, by the time the Commissioner (Appeals) had rejected their appeal on the ground of non-compliance vide his impugned order dated 05.08.2014. Learned Counsel for the appellant submits that in view of the above facts of the case, the Commissioner (Appeals) may be directed to restore their appeal and hear the matter on merits.


Court: CESTAT Ahmedabad   Date of Order: 2015-11-13

Heard both sides. The Commissioner (Appeals) had ordered pre-deposit of Rs. 20 Lakhs in this mater and since the appellant failed to pay the same, their appeals were dismissed, without going into merits. The appellant therefore filed these appeals before the Tribunal after paying the mandatory pre-deposit of 10%, under the amended provisions of Section 35F of Central Excise Act, 1944. The learned Counsel for the appellant submits that on merits the issue is covered in favour of the appellant. He submits that pre-deposit should have been waived by the Commissioner (Appeals) and he should have heard the matter on merits without insisting on pre-deposit. He pleads for remand of the matter for hearing the issue on merits


Court: CESTAT Ahmedabad   Date of Order: 2015-11-06

The appellants are before us being aggrieved by the impugned Order-in-Appeal dated 19.07.2010. The issue involved is the applicable date up to which the interest is to be paid with regard to the refund sanctioned