Login | Register Now | Contact Us   

CGST Act IGST Act UTGST Act GST (Compensation to the States) Act Addendum to the GST Rate Schedule - 03.06.2017 101st Constitution Amendment Act, 2016 Addendum to the GST Rate Schedule - 18.05.2017 GST Compensation Cess Rates Decided in the GST Council Meeting held on 18.05.2017 Chapter Wise Rate wise GST Schedule - 03.06.2017 Chapter wise GST Rate Schedule for Goods Decided in the GST Council Meeting held on 18.05.2017 Revised Threshold for Composition Scheme - 11.06.2017 IGST Exemptions Approved by the GST Council - 11.06.2017 GST Rates Approved by the GST Council - 11.06.2017 Service Tax Exemptions in GST IGST Exemption, Concession List - 03.06.2017 Composition - Rules Valuation Rules ITC - Rules Invoice, Debit & Credit Notes - Rules Payment - Rules Refund - Rules Registration - Rules Return- Rules Transition Rules Proposed CTD Document Accounts and Record Rules GST rate Schedule for Services Decisions Taken by the GST Council in the 16th Meeting - 11.06.2017 List of Services under Reverse Charge Classification Scheme for Services Under GST

Case Laws Related

  • STO 2013 CESTAT 643
  • Security Agency Service: Limitation: Invocation of extended period of time is also sustainable inasmuch as the appellant deliberately withheld the details of the services rendered from the department and accordingly confirmation of demand invoking the extended period of time is correct in law.

  • STO 2013 CESTAT 212
  • Suppression of facts: Registration fee: Inclusion Thereof: respondent not disclosed fact regarding collection of registration fee in the ST3 returns. It is only during the scrutiny of records it was found that the registration fee is not added to the gross value of the taxable service. Hence the allegation of suppression with intent to evade tax is also sustainable.

  • STO 2013 CESTAT 619
  • Limitation: Department came to know of suppression of value only in January, 2002 when the statement of the appellant was recorded and the notice has been issued in March, 2002. Thus the notice has been issued well within time and the plea of time bar fails.

  • STO 2013 CESTAT 664
  • Demand: Stay: Limitation: Demand based on Audit Report conducted in 2004 and notice issued in 2006: charges about suppression of facts not maintainable: Pre deposit condition waived.

  • STO 2013 CESTAT 66
  • Limitation: When the law was declared against the assessee subsequent to the period involved, and when the earlier decision were in favour of the assessee, no suppression can be attributed to the appellant so as to justifiably invoked longer period of limitation.

  • STO 2013 CESTAT 60
  • Consulting Engineering: Demand: Limitation: Adjudicating authority himself found case for fit for invoking Section 80, hence, demand for longer period not sustainable: Directions issued for partial pre deposit of demand for normal period.

  • STO 2012 CESTAT 1133
  • Limitation: BAS: Appellant's activities were known to the department and the department was confused under which category the service tax is leviable on the services received by the appellant. It was changed from BAS to Computer network services and finally to intellectual property rights service. In view of this factual position, the question of suppression of any facts by the appellant does not arise at all.

  • STO 2012 CESTAT 866
  • Demand: Limitation: Stay : Appellants were under bonafide belief that reimbursable expenses were not to be included in the taxable value as they came across Board Circular relating to Market Research & Survey: Demand for larger period not found sustainable: Directions issued for partial pre deposit in respect of demand for normal period.

  • STO 2012 CESTAT 688
  • Cenvat Credit: Services provided outside SEZ: Larger period : Even if the appellants were to pay the Service Tax, the recipient could have claimed the refund and during the period prior to 03.03.2009 and subsequent to 20.05.2009, exemption was available and apparently during the relevant period by oversight, the provisions of exemption got omitted: Larger period not invokable. 

  • STO 2012 CESTAT 857
  • Valuation: Inclusion of reimbursable expenses: Commissioner (A) set aside penalties of 76, 77 and 78 by invoking provisions of Section 80: It shows that there was no malafide intention, demand appear to be barred by limitation: Stay granted.

  • STO 2012 CESTAT 674
  • Reimbursible expenses: Inclusion thereof: Demand for larger period not sustainable in view of confusion in the trade and department.

  • STO 2012 CESTAT 368
  • Demand: Limitation: question involves interpretation of law and facts in this case and therefore we consider invocation of extended period is not called for.: Soverign function performed by appellants on behalf of RBI exempted from tax.

  • STO 2012 CESTAT 479
  • Limitation: Tribunal gave benefit of bonafide belief to the appellant and has held that in the absence of any wilful misstatement suppression of facts with intent to evade payment of tax, extended period cannot be invoked

  • STO 2012 CESTAT 457
  • Limitation: Section 80 penalty waiver: once the appellate authority comes to a finding for not imposing penalty on the ground that there was no intention to evade payment of duty, the same criteria would apply for the purpose of limitation.

  • STO 2012 CESTAT 583
  • Turnkey Project: Demand issued on entire value under Works Contract Service: Stay: even if project is a turkey contract then also the value of material supplied is to be excluded from the value of the taxable services and if the same is excluded then prima facie on the remaining part of the services the service receiver has already paid service tax : Prima facie case made out for waiver.

  • STO 2012 CESTAT 393
  • Construction of Complex Service: Limitation : Stay: For the same period earlier also demand issued for the said service was dropped and order accepted by the department: Waiver from pre deposit granted.

  • STO 2012 CESTAT 259
  • Valuation: Free supplied items: Penalty: Since there were interim orders issued by the Courts in the matter, suppression of facts cannot be invoked, demand for service tax upheld, penalties set aside: Departmental appeal dismissed. 

  • STO 2012 CESTAT 367
  • Reimbursible expenses: whether without incurring the expense the service could have been provided at all is basic parameter in concluding taxability: Department itself confused before introduction of Valuation Rules, 2006: Larger period cannot be issued.

  • STO 2012 CESTAT 167
  • Rent-a-cab-scheme: Limitation: Since, the demand is not sustainable on the ground of limitation, there is no need to go into the question as to whether the appellant's activity was taxable as 'rent a cab operator's service' or not.

  • STO 2012 CESTAT 190
  • Limitation: Contrary decisions from co-ordinate benches: Extended period cannot be invoked.

  • STO 2012 CESTAT 141
  • Maintenance or Repair Service: Value of spare parts sold by the service provider on which VAT has been paid is not to be included in the taxable value.

  • STO 2012 CESTAT 83
  • Demand: Limitation: Mensrea is an essential element and is required to be established by the department, by tangible affirmative evidence. Mere failure on the part of the assessee, especially when the issue involved is of complicated interpretation of the provisions of law, which were relevantly new, cannot be equated with any malafide suppression or mis-statement.

  • STO 2012 CESTAT 288
  • Limitation: Show Cause Notice time barred as same issued much after audit conducted by the department: Stay: Directions to pre deposit issued for demand of normal period.

  • STO 2012 CESTAT 73
  • GTA Service: Demand: Stay: Limitation: The applicant specifically mentioned in the letter that as all the consignments belongs to the applicant and the charges does not exceed Rs. 1500/-, therefore, the applicants are not paying any Service Tax in respect of the GTA services: On limitation ground stay granted.

  • STO 2012 CESTAT 108
  • GTA Service: Service tax paid with interest: Although detected by Audit, it cannot be said there was suppression of facts, particularly when both the authorities below have not justified suppression of facts: Provisions of Section 73(3) were required to be invoked and no notice to be issued for penalties.

  • STO 2011 CESTAT 85
  • Service Tax: Condonation of delay: Since Commissioner (Appeals) has no powers to condone the delay and this Tribunal also has no powers to condone the delay which has occurred in filing the appeal before Commissioner (Appeals) beyond the statutory time limit, cannot go into the merits of the grounds for fling the appeal belatedly or into the merits of the case as such. Accordingly stay application as well as the appeal are rejected.

  • STO 2011 CESTAT 80
  • Service Tax: Commercial or Industrial Construction Services: Bar of Limitation: There is no evidence in the impugned order referring to any mis-statement or suppression of facts on the part of the appellant with intent to evade payment of duty. In view of the above, the appellant's contention that demand raised beyond the limitation is barred is correct. However, inasmuch as a part of the demand is within the limitation period, the same is required to be confirmed. The Lower authorities would quantify the same along with interest to be paid. (para 8)

    Service Tax: Commercial or Industrial Construction Services: Penalty: There was no malafide on the part of the appellants, the imposition of penalty is not justified and the same is accordingly, set aside. (para 9)

  • STO 2011 CESTAT 32
  • Service Tax: Goods Transport Agency Service: Short payment or non-payment of tax: Pre-deposit: The appellant has been able to make out a strong prima-facie case in their favour in view of the fact that for short payment or non-payment of service tax, the provisions are available in Section 73 of Finance Act, 1994 and Section 73 also covers short payment arising under the provisions of Section 75 Finance Act, 1994. Requirement of pre-deposit of interest on service tax demanded and penalty imposed is waived. (para 3)

  • STO 2011 CESTAT 18
  • Service Tax: Consulting Engineers Services: The taxable event has not occurred in India, inasmuch as the activity of development of technology, technical information & know-how, transfer of design, drawing etc has taken place in USA. The consumption of such services in India, when admittedly no such service stands provided by the appellant in India, cannot be held to be a taxable event. (para 9)

    Service Tax: Consulting Engineers Services: Bar of Limitation: Any bonafide lapse not to make enquiries about its obligation to pay duty/tax, cannot be made reason for invocation of extended period unless there is evidence to show that such lapse was on account of malafide intention, and with guilty mind of avoiding payment of tax. There being none in the present case, the demand having been raised beyond the normal period of limitation, is barred by limitation. In view of the above, demand is required to be set aside along with setting aside of confirmation of interest and imposition of penalty. (para 11,12)

  • STO 2011 CESTAT 69
  • Service Tax: Clearing & Forwarding Agents Services: The Commissioner has held that the appellants indirectly dealt with the goods and as such has to be held as clearing and forwarding agent. It stands held by the larger Bench that the expression ‘directly or indirectly’ cannot form the activity of clearing and forwarding operations. (para 4)

    Service Tax: Clearing & Forwarding Agents Services: Bar of Limitation: The demand for the period 9.7.01 to 9.7.04 having been raised on 11.7.05 is barred by limitation. For all the above reasons, the impugned order is set aside and allow the appeal with consequential relief to the appellants. (para 5)

  • STO 2011 CESTAT 60
  • Service Tax: Business Auxiliary Services: Show Cause not travelled beyond scope: The show cause notice only makes a statement of fact that call centre service was exempt till 1.3.06 and nowhere there is an admission that the appellant was rendering call centre service only. (para 8)

    Service Tax: Business Auxiliary Services: Call Centre activities: The activities of registration of complaints/monitoring of complaints, collection of payments, accounting for the same and management of accounts and complaints cannot be called as call centre activities. (para 12)

    Service Tax: Business Auxiliary Services: Registering of complaints and collection of bills: Once the appellants deal with the customer, he is acting on behalf of the electricity company/department and therefore classification of services provided by the appellant is appropriately to be classified under Business Auxiliary Service and not under SSBC. (para 12)

    Service Tax: Business Auxiliary Services: Maintenance & Repairs of software: Clarification which widens the scope of tax cannot have retrospective effect: In every case, word 'maintenance' has been used. In the absence of the word 'development' and presence of word 'maintenance' in the agreement, and also in view of the failure of the appellant to submit bifurcation, have to take a view that the agreement covers maintenance only. In view of the ratio of the decision in the case of Martin Lottery Agencies Ltd, it would not be appropriate to apply the explanation retrospectively and levy Service Tax w,e.f. 9.7,04. In any case, the very fact that explanation has been added to clarify doubts, would show that suppression of facts could not have been invoked in this case. In view of the above decision, maintenance of software became taxable only from 1.6.07. (para 14,15)

    Service Tax: Support services of business or commerce: Billing & Meter reading: When the meter reading is not done by the implementing agency, as can be seen from the contract with the respective Assistant Accounts Officers or EROs are required to provide meter reading books on the prescribed dates and the appellant is required to enter the data of meter readings, verify the same, incorporate in the computer master and process the bills, this activity is correctly classifiable under SSBC as claimed by the learned Advocate. The spot billing and HT billing is also covered in the same category. (para 17)

    Service Tax: Support services of business or commerce: Energy audit: This service is clearly covered by SSBC since it is in relation to business or commerce, which is nothing but supply of electricity and recovery of cost thereof. It is covered by "managing distribution and distribution logistics". In this case, by doing energy audit, the appellant is assisting in finding out whether all the electricity received has been sold and if not, where the problem lies. This is nothing but management of distribution and logistics of electricity supplies. Therefore, this is clearly covered under SSBC and not under Business Auxiliary Service. (para 18)

    Service Tax: Support services of business or commerce: Consumer Indexing : In this case, development of software only facilitates the consumer indexing and real work is physical in nature as observed by learned Commissioner. Back office services and other activities such as tax service, international assignment service etc. were not related to development of software. It was also observed that use of computer in these services was secondary and primary activity was that of business related work. Therefore, it is quite clear that this cannot be classified as I.T. service. The electricity companies/departments are required to know where the transformers and poles are located and consumers connected to poles/transformers to provide service or to attend to the complaint etc. This facilitates better distribution of electricity and also solves logistics problems when complaints are received. Therefore, this service is also appropriately classifiable under SSBC. (para 19,20)

    Service Tax: Business Auxiliary Services: Watch and Ward Route Rider service: This is a part of Electricity Call Centre, Customer Service Centre and Computerized Collection Centre and is a subsidiary activity relating to them. These services are classifiable under Business Auxiliary Service only. Therefore, this service is also correctly classifiable under Business Auxiliary Service. (para 21)

    Service Tax: Business Auxiliary Services: Extended period of limitation: It is a statutory obligation on the part of every service provider to see whether the service rendered by him is liable to Service Tax and make declaration to the department. There is no indication to show whether the appellant had sought clarification from the department or obtained any legal opinion as regards liability to Service Tax. There was a statutory obligation cast on the appellant to obtain registration and pay Service Tax in respect of various services. It has to be noted that even on 3.3.06, when the application was made, the appellant had not indicated all activities undertaken by them. Therefore, have to uphold the invocation of extended period. (para 22)

    Service Tax: Business Auxiliary Services: Penalty: The learned Commissioner has imposed penalty under Section 76 but has not quantified the same. Therefore, to this extent, the impugned order is defective. (para 23)

    Service Tax: Business Auxiliary Services:  Remand: The demand has to be re-quantified, since in some cases, the classification has been changed and in some cases, the appellant's claims have been accepted. Further, as already observed, the corrigendum was issued to amend the amount of Service Tax demanded. Further, penalty under Section 76 of Finance Act, 1994, has not been quantified. For this purpose, the impugned order is required to be set aside and matter remanded to original adjudicating authority for fresh decision (para 24,25)

  • STO 2010 CESTAT 761
  • Limitation: Plea raised by the appellants not examined by the lower authority: Matter remanded.

  • STO 2010 CESTAT 669
  • Service Tax: Bar of Limitation: Remand: Commissioner (Appeals) has not considered the contention of the appellant that the show cause notice is barred by limitation. Hence, after setting aside the impugned order the matter is sent back to the Commissioner (Appeals) first to decide the limitation issue if the appellant succeeds on limitation issue. With these observations, the impugned order is set aside and the appeal is allowed by way of remand. (para 4,5).

  • STO 2010 CESTAT 486
  • Service Tax: Refund: Goods Transport Agency Service: Bar of Limitation: Section 11B: As the time limit for filing the refund claim is one year as provided under Section 11B of the Central Excise Act and the refund has been filed after one year, therefore, the refund is time barred. The impugned order is set aside and the appeal in this regard is allowed.

    Service Tax: Refund: Goods Transport Agency Service: Unjust Enrichment: All the refund claims are subject to principles of unjust enrichment. The impugned order in this regard is set aside and the matter is remanded to the Commissioner (Appeals) to decide the issue of unjust enrichment.

  • STO 2010 CESTAT 437
  • Service Tax: Appeal: Statutory period of filing appeal: Section 35 of Central Excise Act, 1944: In this case, the appeal has been filed by the appellant beyond the period of 90 days. In the case of Navinon Ltd. Vs. UOI reported in CEO 2004 Bom 46 the Hon’ble High Court of Bombay has held that appeal preferred beyond 30 days of expiry of statutory period of 60 days held to be time-barred and the same view was taken by the Tribunal in the case of Kouni Travels Pvt. Ltd Vs.CST, Bangalore reported in  STO 2009 CESTAT 1404.The appeal filed by the appellant is rejected. (para 4)

  • STO 2010 CESTAT 404
  • Service Tax: Scientific or Technical Consultancy Service: Grant Received from Government: Welfare Projects: Grant-in-aid received from State Government for implementation of the Governmental schemes, the assessee as implementing agency did not render any taxable "service" to the government. Service Tax not leviable under scientific or technical consultancy service.

    Limitation: No Suppression of Facts: The assessee had furnished all the relevant facts to the department through a letter addressed to the jurisdictional Assistant Commissioner. Later on, in 2006, they stated all these facts once again in a letter addressed to the Superintendent of Service Tax. Issuance of show-cause notice invoking the first proviso to Section 73(1) of the Finance Act 1994 on the ground of suppression of facts is not tenable.

  • STO 2010 CESTAT 251
  • Limitation for refund claim: Date of filing Initial claim is relevant.

  • STO 2010 CESTAT 273
  • Penalty: Section 73 (1): Revenue has not invoked the proviso to Section 73(1) in order to contend that penalty is imposable. This case is falling within the normal period of limitation. Therefore, question of any penalty does not arise. 

  • STO 2010 CESTAT 253
  • Service Tax: Business Auxiliary Services: Space provided to financial instutions at authorised service stations : Bar of Limitation : There was doubt in the field as regards coverage of above activity under the category of Business Auxiliary service. The same stand clarified by the Board's notification dt. 6.11.06. Inasmuch as the period is much earlier to the issuance of said circular and the show cause notice stand issued on 24.07.08, the demand is required to be held as barred by limitation. Accordingly, the impugned order is set aside on the above issue and the appeal is allowed with consequential relief to the appellant. (para 4)

  • STO 2010 CESTAT 256
  • Service Tax: Appeal hit by time bar: Date of communication of Order: Remand: The limitation for filing appeal starts from the period of communication of the order and not by sending order itself. There is also no evidence received from the Postal department to show that the order stand delivered to the appellant. The stay petition is allowed, set aside the impugned order of the Commissioner (Appeals) and remand the matter to him for verifying the date of receipt of the order by the appellant and to decide on merit thereafter. (para 2,3)

  • STO 2010 CESTAT 277
  • Service Tax: Bar of limitation: Suppression: Burden of Proof: The burden of establishing that the assessees were guilty of suppression lie upon the department and the burden has not been discharged in this case. The assessees did not suppress anything so as to warrant invoking the extended period of limitation. The impugned order is set aside on this ground alone without recording any finding on the merits of the case.

  • STO 2010 CESTAT 229
  • Stay: Repair & Maintenance Service V/s. Work Contract: Appellants paid service tax on value of services, however, invoices did not show value of goods/services separately, hence, benefit of Notification.No.12/2003 not admissible.

    Limitation: Department had audited ST-3 returns upto March, 2007 and wherever service tax was paid on amount less than 20% of total value the appellants were asked to pay the differential duty. Hence, upto March, 2007 limitation applicable.

  • STO 2010 CESTAT 214
  • Suppression of Facts : The law as laid down in section 73 as it stood as on 28.3.2005 was required to be applied, and therefore it was necessary to allege and establish suppression before confirming the demand for a period beyond the normal period of limitation,

  • STO 2010 CESTAT 324
  • Service Tax: Date of Communication of Order: Time limit for filing appeal: Section 85: The limitation prescribed under this law is to be accounted from the date of receipt of the impugned order. Therefore, appellant's grievance is to be decided by the learned Appellate Authority on merit. It would be preferable for the Appellant to place the date chart before the learned First Appellate Authority along with statutory proviso of Section 85 of the Finance Act for his better appreciation and to consider the appeal on merit. (para 4)

  • STO 2010 CESTAT 213
  • Rent-a-cab-scheme Operator: Vehicles provided with driver for journey to specific destination where the vehicle remains under disposal and control of the tour operator cannot be treated as rent-a-cab service. The category of service is to be determined on the basis of agreement entered or intention between the two parties and not on the basis of what is accepted by the service provider.

    Limitation: The levy having been introduced with effect from 01.04.2000 was not very dear and when the Tribunal itself has held that .such transportation services would not be covered by rent-a-cab service, the appellant cannot be attributed with any malafide.

  • STO 2010 CESTAT 249
  • Cenvat credit on input services: Common services for taxable and exempted output services: Assessee throughout disputing that they were rendering both type of output services: Hence limitation is applicable: Demand time barred.

  • STO 2010 CESTAT 167
  • Service Tax: Cenvat Credit on input services: Condonation of delay: The reading of the adjudication order clearly shows that it is in respect of CENVAT Credit under Central Excise Act and Rules. No merit in the contention of Appellant that they were under bona fide belief that the proceedings were under the Finance Act in respect of Service Tax. As per the provisions of Section 35 of Central Excise Act the Commissioner is empowered to condone delay of 30 days beyond the normal period of limitation of 60 days (para 6)

  • STO 2010 CESTAT 131
  • Suppression of Facts: Contradictory Finding: In the first Para, Assistant Commissioner is confirming the demand beyond the period of limitation invoking the extended period meaning hereby that there was suppression of facts / mis-declaration. In the very next Para, he has mentioned that the short payment occurred because of software / clerical error and there was no malafide intention. Further he finds no justification for imposing penalty under various sections in view of the provisions of Section 80 of Finance Act, 1994. There has to be a clear finding that suppression or mis-declaration for invocation of extended period and for demand also. Matter is remanded back for taking a fresh decision.

  • STO 2010 CESTAT 210
  • Delay in filing appeal: Section 5 of Limitation Act is not applicable. Delay can be condoned maximum 30 days beyond statutory period.

  • STO 2010 CESTAT 166
  • Service Tax: Dispute in classification of Service: Bar of Limitation: Unable to find what was the nature of the activity carried out by the appellants to bring it into the fold of installation and commissioning services. None of the orders passed by the authorities below discloses the nature of the activity. The dispute between the parties related only to classification issue for which no penalty was imposed by the appellate authority. He thus modified the adjudication order. All these features require the appeal of the appellants to be allowed. (para 4)

  • STO 2010 CESTAT 172
  • Service Tax: Advertising Agency Service: Refund: Bar of Limitation: Since both sides agree that the refund would be governed by the limitation period prescribed under Section 11B, it is only the refund claim of Rs. 82,544/- of the service tax for the month of July 02 paid on 16.8.02, which would be hit by time bar and the remaining claim would be within time. In view of this, the Commissioner (Appeals)'s order is incorrect only to the extent It has allowed the refund claim of Rs. 82,544/- of service tax paid on 16.8.02. The Revenue's appeal is allowed only to this extent and the Commissioner (Appears)'s order stands modified as above. (para 3)

  • STO 2010 CESTAT 169
  • Service Tax: Business Auxiliary Services: Extended Period of Limitation: None of the allegations show suppression of fact or any deliberate act caused to cause loss of Revenue. Once such allegations are absent, how the extended period of limitation shall be applicable is not explained for which the order by the learned Commissioner who had examined the facts thoroughly without noticing any fault of the assessee is upheld Accordingly, Revenue’s appeal is dismissed. (para 3)

  • STO 2010 CESTAT 250
  • GTA Service: Stay: Limitation: Appellants disputing levy on the ground that they were arranging for transportation on behalf of farmers, hence, not liable to pay service tax: On Limitation prima facie case made out: Stay granted.

  • STO 2010 CESTAT 138
  • Merging of Show Cause Notice: Commissioner has merged both the show cause notices in a single show cause notice which is not permissible under the law.

    Clearing and Forwarding Agent Service: Demand in both the show cause notices is for the same period and for the same amount. First show cause notice demands Service Tax under the category of 'Clearing and Forwarding Agent' is not sustainable as the activities of cutting of sugarcanes and its loading and transportation up to the sugar factory does not qualify under the definition of `Clearing and Forwarding Agent'.

    Subsequent Show Cause Notice: The show cause notice was issued later-on, is barred by limitation as the department was having the knowledge of activities undertaken by the appellant.

  • STO 2010 CESTAT 79
  • Service Tax: Cargo Handling Service: on merits the issue stands against the assessees by the Tribunal's decision in the case of J. K. Transport Vs. CCE, Raipur -STO 2006 CESTAT 45 wherein it has been held that a proprietary firm, cannot be said to be an individual undertaking the activity of loading and unloading of cargo in individual capacity and hence covered under cargo handling services.

    Service Tax: Cargo Handling Service: Bar of Limitation: Since the period in dispute is from August, 2002 to 12.10.04, while the show cause notice is dated 31.1.2005, the demand for the period up to 31.01.2004 is barred by limitation. The demand for the period from February, 2004 to 12.10.2004 is upheld and required to be requantified, for which purpose the case is remanded to the adjudicating authority. Since, part of the demand is upheld, imposition of penalty under Section 76 and Section 77 are also required to be sustained. The appeal is thus partly allowed in the above terms.

  • STO 2010 CESTAT 80
  • Service Tax: Import of Service: Import of service attracted levy of service tax prior to the introduction of Section 66A of the Finance Act, 1994 w.e.f. 18.4.06, stands answered against the Revenue by the decision of the Hon'ble apex court reported in STO 2009 SC 72 in the case of Union of India & Others Vs Indian National Ship Owners Association, upholding the judgment of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court STO 2009 Bom 78 that import of service became liable to tax only w.e.f. 18.4.06. Since the period in dispute in the present appeal is prior to that date, no legal infirmity in the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) setting aside the demand, and accordingly dismiss this appeal.





    Page copy protected against web site content infringement by Copyscape

    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. Mr Certify 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.