service tax cases

Service Tax - COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, MUMBAI-V Versus GTC INDUSTRIES LTD. = 2008

Date of Decision: September 25, 2008 - CESTAT MUMBAIWhether the services provided by the outdoor caterers in the canteen of the manufacturer is input service, in respect of which credit can be taken by the manufacturer – Whether the cost of food is borne by the worker or by the factory, the same will form part of expenditure incurred by the manufacturer and will have a bearing on the cost of production - hence, employment of outdoor caterer has to be considered as an input service relating to the business and Cenvat credit is admissible
Service Tax - TOYOTA KIRLOSKAR MOTOR P. LTD. Versus C.C.E. (L.T.U.), BANGALORE = 2008

Date of Decision: August 5, 2008 - CESTAT BANGLORESocial functions to entertain the employees for Rajyostava Function and inauguration of police station cannot be brought within the ambit of activities relating to business – hence expenses for holding Kannada Rajyostava function and for inaugural function of Kengeri Police Station cannot be considered as input service – credit not admissible – bona fide belief of appellant of admissibility of credit on input services – no allegation of willful suppression in SCN – demand is time barred
Service Tax - MORINDA CO-OPERATIVE SUGAR MILLS LTD. Versus COMMR. OF C. EX., LUDHIANA = 2008

Date of Decision: September 5, 2008 - CESTAT NEW DELHIAppellants are manufacturers of sugar; as required by the Government, during the relevant period, they maintained a specified buffer stock out of free sale sugar to be disposed of subsequently based on specific instructions - prima-facie view is that in the given facts and circumstances of the case the appellants are not rendering the service of storage and warehouse – demand under the category of storage and warehouse service is not justified – stay granted
Service Tax - COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE Versus EXCEL CROP CARE LTD. = 2008

Date of Decision: July 29, 2008 - HIGH COURT GUJARAT Input credit on mobile services - On a plain reading of Rule 2(l)(i), it is apparent that the mobile service provider, who is liable to pay service tax, and recovers the same by adding such service tax in his bill, is the person providing taxable service and is rendering ‘output service’ so as to constitute ‘input service’ in hands of respondent assessee – credit not deniable on ground that phones were not installed in the factory premises – no question of law arise – revenue’s appeal dismissed
Service Tax - ANAND ASSOCIATES Versus CST, AHMEDABAD = 2008

Date of Decision: August 26, 2008 - CESTAT AHMEDABADServices of Mandap Keeper - that the definition of “Mandap Keeper” includes providing of services to client in respect of open plot allowed to be used for social function and the same does not include commission received from decorators by providing them the client for the purpose of decoration. Such commission has to be excluded while calculating the service tax – matter is remanded to original adjudicating authority for re-quantification of the duty & penalty
Service Tax - CCE. RAJKOT Versus RAJHANS METALS P. LTD. = 2008

Date of Decision: August 13, 2008 - CESTAT AHMEDABADWhether the respondents are eligible for cenvat credit of service tax paid on GTA services availed for the purpose of transportation of the finished goods from the factory to the consignment agent’s premises - Circular No.137/3/2006-CX.4 dt. 2/2/2006 - In view of the fact that consignment agent premises is also defined as a place of removal and the property in the goods never passes to a consignment agent, respondents are eligible for the cenvat credit.