Login | Register Now | Contact Us   
 

Finance Bill, 2014 enacted into Finance Act, 2014, Date of Enactment 06.08.2014Budget 2014-15 : Sale of space for advertising has been made taxable except for print media.Budget 2014-15 : Radio Taxis are now taxable.Budget 2014-15 : Education : The definition of Auxiliary Education Services has been scraped.Budget 2014-15 : Works Contract : 2 slab rates prescribed in place of earlier 3 slabs.Budget 2014-15 : E-payment of Service tax is being made mandatory with effect from 01.10.2014.Budget 2014-15 : POPS: Definition of intermediary is being amended to include the intermediary of goods in its scope.

Case Laws
STO 2014 CESTAT 71
[Date of Order: 2014-01-24]

Service Tax : Refund of erroneous payment of tax and deptt. can not retain such payment : Period of limitation under Section 11B : Scope and admissibility : The appellants were not required to pay service tax but the appellants have paid the service tax erroneously and the same has not been disputed by the department. In that circumstances, as per the Circular No.108/2/09 ST dated 29.01.2009, the department is not Iegally allowed to calculate the service tax and if they do so, the same is unconstitutional. Merely a payment made by the appellant erroneously does not authorize the department to retain the same. Therefore, the provisions of Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944 are not applicable as held by the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in the case of KVR Construction (supra). Therefore, the provisions of Section 11B of Central Excise Act, 1944 are not applicable and the impugned orders are set aside(Para 6,7).

Appeal allowed.

Free Preview
STO 2014 CESTAT 89
[Date of Order: 2014-01-22]

Cenvat Credit: Input Service: GTA Service: No nexus with taxable output service provided: Demand and penalties set aside as demand beyond normal period of limitation.

Free Preview
STO 2014 CESTAT 94
[Date of Order: 2014-01-22]

GTA Service: Service tax paid by claiming abatement under Notfn.No.32/2004: Cenvat credit of tax paid on GTA paid for receipt of inputs taken: condition for above mentioned exemption notifications stands fulfilled as the challans issued by the GTA service provider do carry such declarations regarding non-availment of Cenvat credit has not even been looked into by the original adjudicating authority: Matter remanded.

Free Preview
STO 2014 CESTAT 103
[Date of Order: 2014-01-22]

Tour Operator: Since during the period of dispute, a person operating touring a contract carriage, not covered by the definition of 'Tourist Vehicle', was not covered and only the persons operating tours in tourist vehicles covered by definition of "Tour Operator", the respondent, in this case, who were operating tours in the vehicles, which were not the tourist vehicles in terms of Section 2(43) of the Motor Vehicle Act, read with the Rule 128 of the Central Motor Vehicle Rules, would not be covered by the definition of "Tour Operator”.

Free Preview
STO 2014 CESTAT 104
[Date of Order: 2014-01-22]

C&F Agent Service: Valuation: Demurrage/wharfage charges charged by the railways and expenses on local transport, the respondent have acted only as agent of PCL and, as such, the expenses for these items reimbursed to them on actual basis by their principal - PCL would be not includible in the assessable value of the C&F agent services provided by them.

Free Preview
STO 2014 CESTAT 141
[Date of Order: 2014-01-22]

Refund: Unjust Enrichment: Tax variation being not a part of the contracted value, would not result in any unjust enrichment of the assessee. 

Free Preview
STO 2014 CESTAT 378
[Date of Order: 2014-01-22]

Consulting Engineering Service: Demand: Plea that the service relating to Consulting Engineering not provided and income pertains to some other source, not supported by documentary evidence: Appeal rejected.

Free Preview
STO 2014 CESTAT 399
[Date of Order: 2014-01-22]

Intellectual Property Right: Appellants entered into agreement with job worker to manufacture beer using their brand name: FIPL is only responsible for bottling, packing and dispatch as per the specification, terms, formula etc. as laid down by the appellant. Further, FIPL is bound to charge the price from the notified Indenter of the appellant as fixed by the appellant. Only for the risks associated with the manufacturing process fastened on FIPL (CBU), it cannot be said that as FIPL is responsible for proper quality, quantity and timely production, they are providing Franchise Service and/ or IPR Service.

Free Preview
STO 2014 CESTAT 69
[Date of Order: 2014-01-22]

Service Tax: Rejection of refund of the service tax paid on the commission received: Scope and admissibility: They received the commission and the commission is towards the export of service. As the amount of service tax paid by the foreign supplier has been credited to their account towards the payment to be received for the further consignment. Commissioner (Appeals) has traveled beyond the scope of issue that, it is not the case of export of service. Revenue has held that it is a case of export of service. The Revenue cannot take two different views for the same assessee of the same activity. Further the appellant has been able to provide the proof of outgoing foreign remittance towards the service tax received from their foreign client and the same has not been considered by both the lower authorities which they were not required to do so. Therefore, the matter is remanded back to the adjudicating authority to consider the issue towards the payment of service tax received from their foreign client and has been paid to their foreign client(Para 6).

Appeal disposed of by way of remand.

Free Preview
STO 2014 CESTAT 70
[Date of Order: 2014-01-22]

Service Tax: Photography Service: Penalty under Section 76,77: Scope: Appellant is a proprietorship concern. Although the appellant has not made the payment in time but voluntarily filed the service tax returns and also intimated to the department about not paying the service tax in time. As and when the appellant receives payment towards the service rendered, they paid the entire amount of service tax along with the interest. There was no deliberate intention of the appellant to delay the payment. Therefore, relying on the Tribunal's decision in the case of CCE, Mumbai Vs. Top Detective & Security Service Pvt. Ltd. Mumbai, the penalty imposed under Sections 76 and 77 of the Finance Act, 1994 is waived.(Para 5).

Appeal allowed.

Free Preview
STO 2014 CESTAT 73
[Date of Order: 2014-01-22]

Service Tax: Refund: Relevant date: What is the relevant date for filing the refund claim. In the case of CCE Pune I Vs. Eaton Industries P. Ltd. CEO 2010 CESTAT 1147 this Tribunal held that in the case of export of service during the impugned period the relevant date is the date of receipt of the payment towards the service exported. As the appellant has filed the refund claim in this matter within one year of the date of receipt of the payment, therefore, the refund claim is in time. Accordingly, the impugned order is set aside(Para 5).

Appeal allowed.

Free Preview
STO 2014 CESTAT 86
[Date of Order: 2014-01-21]

Demand: Service tax demanded by department on service charges to include value of component materials: Stay granted.

Free Preview
STO 2014 CESTAT 87
[Date of Order: 2014-01-21]

Cenvat Credit: Utilisation of Cenvat credit: Cenvat credit, which already stands used for payment of Service Tax, cannot be confirmed again, against the assessee.

Free Preview
STO 2014 CESTAT 90
[Date of Order: 2014-01-21]

Maintenance or Repair Service: Demand: Stay: Appellant given adequate opportunities to produce evidence to claim abatement or prove non liability to pay service tax : directions issued to make 50% of amount of tax as pre deposit.

Free Preview
STO 2014 CESTAT 93
[Date of Order: 2014-01-21]

Speaking Order: Remand: Lower appellate authority has not applied his mind at all: While passing an order in appeal, Commissioner (Appeals) has to discuss in detail the various contentions raised by the appellant, the legal position and thereafter, come to a conclusion. Merely because the adjudicating authority has given an elaborate finding, it does not mean that the appellate authority need not discuss the matter and give a finding. Such an approach makes a mockery of the appeal proceedings: Matter remanded. 

Free Preview
STO 2014 CESTAT 105
[Date of Order: 2014-01-21]

Mandap Keeper Service: Room charges: On the basis of earlier Order of Tribunal: Pre deposit condition waived.

Free Preview
STO 2014 CESTAT 108
[Date of Order: 2014-01-21]

Commercial or Industrial Construction Service: During the period the appellants would be eligible for abatement of 67% as they had not claimed Cenvat credit during the relevant period: Appellants directed to make partial pre deposit and produce compliance before Commissioner (A): Matter remanded to Commissioner (A) for proper verification of the documents furnished by the appellants.

Free Preview
STO 2014 CESTAT 117
[Date of Order: 2014-01-21]

Demand: import of service: Since the services are performed outside India, there is no service tax liability on the services.

Free Preview
STO 2014 CESTAT 48
[Date of Order: 2014-01-21]

Service Tax: Courier service during April 2004 to March 2005 : Penalty under Section 76 of the Finance Act 1994 which has been set aside by the Commissioner (Appeals) after invoking provisions of Section 80 : Scope : The very fact that the matter went right up to the Supreme Court and finally it was decided against the assessee shows that assessee definitely felt that they had a case for non-payment of service tax. That being the position, it cannot be agreed that there was willful intention on the part of the assessee not to comply with tax liabilities. Intention to evade duty and suppression of facts etc. have not been invoked specifically in the show-cause notice and penalty under Section 78 of Finance Act 1994 has also not been proposed. Under these circumstances, the reasonable cause for delay in payment of tax and Commissioner (Appeals) was right in not imposing penalty by invoking provisions of Section 80 of the Finance Act.(Para 3).

Appeal disposed off.

Free Preview
STO 2014 CESTAT 49
[Date of Order: 2014-01-21]

Service Tax: Penalties under Sections 76, 77 and 78 of the Finance Act, 1994: Scope: The entire amount of service tax along with the interest on pointing out by the Revenue for the period 2006-2007 to June 2009 before the issue of show cause notice, therefore, the question of imposing penalty does not arise as held by the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in the case of CCE & S. T., LTU Bangalore Vs. Adecco Flexione Workforce Solutions Ltd. - STO 2011 Kar 1096, Commissioner of Service Tax, Bangalore Vs. Master Kleen - STO 2011 Kar 1149 and this Tribunal's decision in the case of Master Kleen Vs. Commissioner of Service Tax, Bangalore - 2010 (17) S.T.R. 365 (Tri. - Bang.), M.R. Coatings Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CCE Rajkot STO 2012 CESTAT 1169 and Commissioner of Service Tax Vs. Competent Automobiles Co. Ltd. STO 2011 CESTAT 1173.(Para 3,4).

Appeal allowed.

Free Preview
< Previous 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next >
(DISCLAIMER: Despite all efforts have been made to reproduce the orders and other related contents correctly, there may still be chances for such errors and/ or omissions to have crept in inadvertently. The access and circulation is subject to the condition that Easy Service Tax Online Dot Com Private Limited is not responsible / liable for any loss or damage caused to anyone due to any mistake / error / omissions.)
 
 

www.centralexciseonline.com

 


www.taxolegal.com


Page copy protected against web site content infringement by Copyscape


www.customsindiaonline.com
Home | Mission | Contact Us | Acknowledgements © 2009 Copyrights, All Rights Reserved. 
Disclaimer Though all efforts have been made to reproduce the order and other contents correctly, the access and circulation is subject to the condition that EASY SERVICETAXONLINE DOT COM PRIVATE LIMITED is not responsible/liable for any loss or damage caused to anyone due to any mistake/error/omissions. The Site is constantly updated and any or all of the contents are liable to be modified, altered, deleted or replaced. EASY SERVICETAXONLINE DOT COM PRIVATE LIMITED is not responsible/liable for any loss or damage caused to anyone whether directly or indirectly  due to any modification , alteration, addition, deletion or replacement of any of the contents.

Copyright : Reproduction of news articles, photos, or any other content in whole or in part in any form or medium without express written permission of  EASY SERVICETAXONLINE DOT COM PRIVATE LIMITED is prohibited.Do not copy contents of this site . All pages are protected by COPYSCAPE. Plagiarism will be detected by COPYSCAPE.