Service Tax - R.B. AGENCIES Versus COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE,
Date of Decision: July 3, 2007 - CESTAT, BANGALOREAppellants merely purchase SIM cards and recharge coupons from BSNL and sell the same for a profit - It is also seen that Sales Tax Authorities are proceeding against the similarly situated parties for payment of Sales Tax - Bench had already taken a view that the appellants do not render any service but simply sell the goods - Therefore, they would not be liable to pay Service Tax under the category of “Business Auxiliary Services” – assessee’s appeal allowed
Service Tax - HINDUSTAN CONSTRUCTION CO. LTD. Versus COMMR. OF C. EX., COIMBATORE = 2008
Date of Decision: April 30, 2008 - CESTAT, CHENNAIAgreement involved HCCL undertaking work of engineering design as well as construction of Water Treatment and Distribution Project (TWP) - HCCL did not render engineering consultancy to client - Therefore the impugned amount of service tax paid as Consulting Engineer by assessee (HCCL) was not due to be paid – refund of same is allowed
Service Tax - CCE, COIMBATORE Versus COIMBATORE KANARAGA LORRY URIMAIYALARGAL NALA TRUST
Date of Decision: May 2, 2008 - CESTAT, CHENNAIActivity of sale of petroleum products by appellants on behalf of Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd.- respondents claim itself to be a Trust functioning without profit motive – appellate authority held that the Trust was not a commercial concern & hence exempted from tax under Business Auxiliary Service - provisions of Trust Deed require to be examined for the purpose of determining as to whether the respondents can be treated as a commercial concern – matter remanded for de novo adjudication
Service Tax - R. SUKUMAR Versus COMMR. OF C. EX., TRICHY = 2008
Date of Decision: March 11, 2008 - CESTAT, CHENNAIInvestigation report did not indicate mens rea or contumacious conduct on the part of the assessee to evade service tax - appellant paid the tax due along with interest before issue of the Show Cause Notice - penalty can be imposed under Section 78 only if a service provider has evaded payment of duty by fraud, wilful suppression, collusion etc. - instant case is a fit one to grant relief provided under Section 80 – assessee’s appeal allowed
Service Tax - COMMR. OF C. EX., BELGAUM Versus PRATIK AGENCIES = 2008
Date of Decision: April 10, 2008 - CESTAT, BANGALORECommissioner (A) hold reimbursable amounts are not to be included for calculating the service tax - service tax is only on the Commission received for C&F agency services - Comm. (A) remanded the matter to Original Authority to examine the claim of the appellants in the light of the evidences to be produced – order of comm..(A) is correct – since assessee made entire position clear to dept. about paying tax excluding the reimbursable amount, larger period not invocable – dept. appeal dismissed
Service Tax - SANDEEP SOBTI Versus COMMR. OF C. EX., MEERUT = 2008
Date of Decision: April 2, 2008 - CESTAT, NEW DELHISCN issued proposing demand under Rent-a-cab Scheme Operator – Assessee not replied SCN - demand confirmed by original authority vide its ex parte order – assessee contends that running buses on hire shall not come under Rent-a-cab Scheme Operator - orders of the lower authorities is set aside & matter remanded to the Original Authority – Dept. is also directed to check up the factual position from the RTO authorities regarding category/type of the vehicles used by the appellant
Service Tax - SHEWALKAR HOTELS Versus COMMR. OF C. EX., NAGPUR = 2008
Date of Decision: April 28, 2008 - CESTAT, MUMBAIIssue is regarding the amount received by the applicant from the Franchiser as rent – revenue alleged that assessee has sold goods from his premises so duty is payable under Business auxiliary services - It is seen from the records that the agreement is franchisee agreement - application for waiver of pre-deposit of the amounts is allowed and recovery thereof stayed
No comments:
Post a Comment