STO 2016 CESTAT 94 [Date of Order: 2016-04-05] |
Penalty: Wrong availment of cenvat credit: Respondent had availed credit on their interpretation of law and the credit availed and utilized was fully disclosed in their accounts and returns: When there was no objection raised even after audit, they cannot be blamed for holding the impression that their interpretation is correct: Penalty rightly set aside: Departmental appeal rejected. |
Free Preview
Hide Preview
|
STO 2016 CESTAT 73 [Date of Order: 2016-04-05] |
Manpower Supply Service: Valuation: There is nothing on record to indicate that M/s Paranjape Auto Cast had paid the amount of wages/salaries of the recruits to appellant and appellant had paid the same to the individuals: Wages not to be included in the value. |
Free Preview
Hide Preview
|
STO 2016 CESTAT 153 [Date of Order: 2016-03-31] |
Penalty: Service tax liability not disputed: Bonafide belief: Section 80: If the appellant had declared receipt of payment and claimed the said payment as received for exempted services, there could be a bonafide belief that tax liability does not arise: Penalties set aside. |
Free Preview
Hide Preview
|
STO 2016 CESTAT 100 [Date of Order: 2016-03-31] |
Refund: Cenvat Credit: Unjust enrichment: Amount of service tax paid in excess has been shown as 'receivable' under the head of 'Loans and Advances': Appellants have not recovered the excess value charged in the invoice and its' corresponding service tax from the recipient of service on the basis of credit note issued by the appellant to the service receiver: Incidence not passed on. |
Free Preview
Hide Preview
|
STO 2016 CESTAT 104 [Date of Order: 2016-03-30] |
Goods Transportation Agency: PDS goods transportation: Respondent issues periodical bill and it is not consignment note or billtees which is primary requirement to classify the activity under Goods Transport Agency as a taxable service. |
Free Preview
Hide Preview
|
STO 2016 CESTAT 52 [Date of Order: 2016-03-28] |
Cenvat credit: Credit on shelters and towers is not admissible. |
Free Preview
Hide Preview
|
STO 2016 CESTAT 145 [Date of Order: 2016-03-24] |
Penalty: Section 78: Suppression: Mere non-declaration cannot be considered as suppression of facts when respondents were filing ST-3 returns during the disputed period. |
Free Preview
Hide Preview
|
STO 2016 CESTAT 149 [Date of Order: 2016-03-23] |
Delay: Commissioner (Appeals) cannot condone delay of 101 days. |
Free Preview
Hide Preview
|
STO 2016 CESTAT 124 [Date of Order: 2016-03-23] |
Demand: Penalty: Adjudicating authority while invoking section 80 of Finance Act, 1994 to drop the proposal for imposing penalties under section 76 and 78 of Finance Act, 1994 did not record reasonable cause for failure to pay the duty: Reasons cited would make it appear that the invoking of section 78 in the notice had no justification at all. If that were so, the resort to extended period for confirming tax liability is without basis. There is an apparent contradiction here: Matter remanded. |
Free Preview
Hide Preview
|
STO 2016 CESTAT 17 [Date of Order: 2016-03-23] |
Demand: Manpower recruitment or supply agency: Appellant was awarded the work of wheel assembly in the factory premises: Purchase order specifically states that an amount of Rs. 1,700/-per unit of wheel assembly will be paid on specific dimension for which appellant has to engage their own manpower to work in the factory premises: Appellant is required to pay wages of the employees who were detailed to work in the factory premises and appellant is required to comply with all the statutory laws in respect of employees working for him: Activity cannot be considered as manpower recruitment agency or supply agency services. |
Free Preview
Hide Preview
|
STO 2016 CESTAT 175 [Date of Order: 2016-03-22] |
Demand: Cenvat Credit: Rule 6(1) of CCR, 2004:Demand on credit availed on input services on the services provided to Jammu & Kashmir is unsustainable.
|
Free Preview
Hide Preview
|
STO 2016 CESTAT 105 [Date of Order: 2016-03-22] |
Refund: Unutilised cenvat credit: Rule 5 of CCR, 2004: Commissioner (A) held that since the refund has to be filed on quarterly basis, the period of 1 year should be computed from the end of the quarter and held that the refund is not time bar: Findings upheld. |
Free Preview
Hide Preview
|
STO 2016 CESTAT 103 [Date of Order: 2016-03-22] |
Refund: Limitation: When in the Notification issued under Rule 5 it is a condition that the assessee has to file refund only once in a quarter: Refund cannot be filed before quarter is completed, in that case, the relevant date for computing 1 year for the purpose of Section 11B shall be from the last day of quarter. |
Free Preview
Hide Preview
|
STO 2016 CESTAT 96 [Date of Order: 2016-03-22] |
Demand: Cenvat Credit: Input Service: Except the construction service and works contract service the credit on other services admissible. |
Free Preview
Hide Preview
|
STO 2016 CESTAT 92 [Date of Order: 2016-03-22] |
Input Service: Rent-a-cab service and Air Travel Agent service though used by employees of the appellant but undisputedly for the performance of the appellant company's business are input services. |
Free Preview
Hide Preview
|
STO 2016 CESTAT 48 [Date of Order: 2016-03-22] |
GTA Service: Utilisation of cenvat credit: For the period prior to 01.03.08 the appellant has correctly utilised the cenvat credit account for payment of GTA service. |
Free Preview
Hide Preview
|
STO 2016 CESTAT 173 [Date of Order: 2016-03-21] |
Refund: Operation of Power Plant : Reclassification of the services as sought by the Adjudicating Authority in a refund claim filed by the assesse seems to be incorrect appreciation of the law: If the Revenue authorities were holding a view that the services rendered by the respondent assessee would be correctly classified under "Management Maintenance and Repair Services" they should have issued a show-cause notice for doing it so. Revenue authorities cannot reclassify the services rendered by the respondent assessee in a refund claim filed by the respondent. |
Free Preview
Hide Preview
|
STO 2016 CESTAT 128 [Date of Order: 2016-03-18] |
Refund: Rejection of claim on the ground that the appellant have availed drawback, the lower authority have not considered the amendment vide Notification No. 33/2008 dated 7/12/2008. whereby condition as specified under clause (e) of para 1 has been deleted w.e.f. 7/12/2008 therefore even though the appellant have availed the drawback refund cannot be rejected on this ground. |
Free Preview
Hide Preview
|
STO 2016 CESTAT 68 [Date of Order: 2016-03-18] |
Demand: Valuation: Cable Operator: It is proved from the challan and payments particulars that the Entertainment Tax has been paid by the appellant to the concerned government authority, the amount of Entertainment Tax shall not be liable to service tax. |
Free Preview
Hide Preview
|
STO 2016 CESTAT 142 [Date of Order: 2016-03-17] |
VCES: Assessee scrupulously followed the procedure: Due to technical problems 50% amount was deposited on 01.01.2014 instead of 31.12.2013: Lapse condoned. |
Free Preview
Hide Preview
|