Service Tax - Nithyananda Electronics Versus Commissioner Of Central Excise Mangalore = 2008
Date of Decision: February 4, 2008 - CESTAT, BANGALORECommissioner (Appeals) rejected the refund claim & confirmed Order-in-Original on ground that the assessee is carrying on the business of marketing & distribution on behalf of M/s. Zee Turner in terms of their Distribution Agreement - appellants not produced OIO as well as the Agreement with M/s. Zee Turner even after giving sufficient opportunities – hence appeal cannot be heard - appeal is rejected granting liberty to the appellants to seek restoration after producing the same
Service Tax - TNS INDIA PVT. LTD. Versus COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE BANGALORE = 2008
Date of Decision: February 4, 2008 - CESTAT, BANGALOREViolation of Principles of Natural Justice – remand order of commissioner is under challenge - terms of reference for remand is beyond the terms of the Show Cause Notice - aspect pertaining to limitation is also not considered - citations relied upon by appelalnts have not been examined – Commissioner (Appeals) shall deal with all the grounds raised by the appellants - appeal is allowed by way of remand to the Commissioner (Appeals) for fresh hearing
Service Tax - Wiptech Peripherals Pvt. Ltd. Versus CCE Rajkot = 2008
Date of Decision: June 27, 2008 - CESTAT AHMEDABADInput credit of service tax denied on the ground that the service tax paid on cell-phone, land-line, courier service cannot be held to be input service for the output service “maintenance & repairs” – held that service tax paid on cell phones or land-lines used in connection with output services is available as credit - some of the cell phones in the name of individuals were not established that they were used in relation to the output services – matter remanded to verify above aspect
Service Tax - Sundaram Brake Linings Ltd. Versus CCE Chennai = 2008
Date of Decision: February 6, 2008 - CESTAT CHENNAIWhether service tax is leviable in the category of “Consulting Engineer’s Service” on the technical know-how fee paid by the appellants to their foreign collaborators for the period 28.2.99 to 31.3.03 - issue is no longer res integra as it stands settled in favour of the assessee by a line of decisions of this Tribunal - Following the consistent view taken by this Tribunal, I set aside the impugned order, wherein tax was demanded in respect of transfer of technical know-how for above period
Service Tax - M/s Industrial Security Agency Versus CCE, Allahabad = 2008
Date of Decision: May 12, 2008 - CESTAT NEW DELHI“Security Agency” service - failure to pay the tax - Commissioner (Appeals) upheld penalty u/s 77 but imposed penalty u/s 76 & 78 by modifying the OIO - appellant was under bonafide belief that it was liable to pay Service Tax only on receipt of the amount from the recipient – impugned order of commissioner (A) is modified further – held that penalty of Rs.1 lac u/s 76 and Rs.1,000 u/s 77 are justified – but penalty u/s 78 is not justified - appeal stands allowed partly
Service Tax - M/s Kurele Industries Versus CCE, Kanpur = 2008
Date of Decision: May 27, 2008 - CESTAT, NEW DELHIDemand - Clearing and Forwarding Agent - During the pendency of the matter before the Commissioner (Appeals), CCE revised Adjudication order & enhanced penalty - Commissioner (Appeals) held that the Appellants are “Commission Agent” not “C/F Agent”, so demand is not sustainable - order of the Commissioner (Appeals) was not challenged by the Revenue before the Appellate Authority - As the demand is not sustainable, enhancement of penalty by the Revision order is also not maintainable
Service Tax - CCE, Allahabad Versus M/s New Govindgarh Steel = 2008
Date of Decision: May 27, 2008 - CESTAT NEW DELHITransportation of goods by road - delay in payment of tax – non-submission of return within the stipulated period - out of penalty imposed u/s 76 & 77, commissioner set aside penalty u/s 77 - Revenue submits that waiver of penalty under Section 77 of the Act is ultra wires – commissioner has dropped penalty u/s 77 only after considering the facts and circumstances of the case, so contention of revenue is not correct - appeal filed by the Revenue is rejected
Central Excise - STRIDES RESEARCH & SPECIALITY CHEM. LTD. Versus C.C.E., MANGALORE = 2008
Date of Decision: June 14, 2007 - CESTAT, BANGALORECenvat credit - Mere for the reason that dealer mentioned incorrect address of appellant factory in invoice, it can’t be said that appellant availed credit irregularly – moreover, dealer has addressed a letter to appellant-assessee that by mistake he put incorrect address in invoice - there is sufficient record to establish that credit had not been availed irregularly – credit not deniable
====================
