Chennai Court June 2010 Judgments
Browse smarter
Open an 18-section brief on any judgment
Structured AI Brief in seconds on any result - plus Semantic Search when you need meaning, not just keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.
Cce, Salem Vs. M/S. Itc Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai
Decided on: Jun-04-2010
The Revenue is aggrieved by the extension of credit of service tax on the following:- 1. Agricultural work 2. Levelling of children park and tree plantations 3. Construction of toilet in school in the village on the ground that these are not covered by the definition of input service as per Rule 2(l) of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004. 2. I have heard both sides. As far as services enumerated at Sl. No. 1 above, where an amount is Rs.46,293/-, I see merit in the submission of the assessee that they are entitled to the credit for the reason that such a service has been held to be an input service in the case of Millipore India Ltd. Vs. CCE - 2009 (13) STR 616. I, therefore, hold that the assessees are entitled to credit of service tax paid on agricultural work. 3. As regards the services set out in 2 and 3 above, I agree with the Revenue, by no stretch of imagination can these be considered as input services relating to business of the assessees. I, therefore, disallow credit of Rs.6,940/...
Cce, Chennai Vs. M/S. Amrutanjan Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai
Decided on: Jun-04-2010
The Revenue is aggrieved by the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) who has extended the benefit of credit of service tax paid on outdoor catering service. 2. On hearing both sides, I find that credit is admissible in the light of the Larger Bench decision in Commissioner Vs. GTC Industries Ltd. - 2008 (12) STR 468, which decision has been relied upon by the lower appellate authority. I, therefore, see no reason to interfere with the impugned order, uphold the same and dismiss the appeal....
M/S. Tafe Ltd. and Another Vs. Cce, Chennai
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai
Decided on: Jun-04-2010
The assessees challenge the denial of credit of tax paid on services such as mosquito repellant, toilet cleaning services (in the case of TAFE Ltd.), security service and tour operator’s service etc. (in the case of Amrutanjan Health Care Ltd.). 2. On hearing both sides, I note that several of the issues involved in these two appeals have already been considered by the Tribunal in Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. GTC Industries Ltd. - 2008 (12) STR 468, M/s. ITC Ltd. Vs. CCE, Hyderabad 2010 (17) STR 146 and Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Cable Corporation of India Ltd. - 2008 (12) STR 598. These decisions have a vital bearing on the outcome of the TAFE and Amrutanjan cases. I, therefore, set aside the impugned orders in these two cases and remand them to the adjudicating authority for fresh decision in the light of the case laws cited supra and any other decision which the assessee also seek to place before the adjudicating authority. They are also at liberty to produce suc...
M/S. Sindoori Travels Vs. Commissioner of Service Tax, Chennai
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai
Decided on: Jun-04-2010
The demand of service tax on the ground that the assessees rendered tour operator’s service during the period 1.4.2000 to 30.4.2001 has been confirmed against the assessees who dispute rendering of such services during the relevant period and state that rendering of such service commenced only with effect from October 2001. In this connection, they refer to profit and loss account together with annexure which according to them show that the tour operator’s service was rendered by them only subsequent to October 2001. 2. I have heard both sides. The documents relied upon by the assessee to substantiate their stand that the services on which tax has been demanded was provided only after the period of demand in the present case were not filed before the revision authority who has passed the impugned order. The personal hearing took place on 6.1.2009 and the order is also of the same date. In this circumstance, I set aside the impugned order and remit the case for fresh decisi...
Commissioner of Customs, TuticorIn Vs. Abarajithaa Imports and Exports
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai
Decided on: Jun-02-2010
The Revenue is in appeal against the reduction of fine and penalty from Rs.2,45,000/- each to Rs.50,000/- and Rs.40,000/- respectively by the lower appellate authority. 2. I have heard both sides. The Commissioner (Appeals) has reduced the fine in lieu of confiscation of the goods in question and the penalty in the light of the decision in the case of Goyal Metal Industries Pvt.Ltd.. Although, Revenue has sought to distinguish the Goyal case from the present one, I am not able to find any distinction for the purpose of enhancement of fine and penalty as prayed for by the Revenue. The value of the goods in both the cases has been enhanced to approx.Rs.10 lakhs ; the Goyal order has attained finality and it has not been appealed against; the contravention in the Goyal case is of provisions of Section 111 (m) and the contravention in the present case is that of Section 111 (m) as well as Section 111 (d) (for port restriction as the goods were permitted import through certain ports and n...
Xomox Sanmar Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Tiruchirapalli
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai
Decided on: Jun-02-2010
Credit of service tax has been disallowed on landscaping services on the ground that such services are not input services. In addition, penalty has been imposed on the assessees. 2. I have heard both sides and find that the issue in dispute stands settled in favour of the assessees by decisions of the Tribunal in ISMT Ltd. Vs CCE and Customs, Aurangabad [2010-TIOL-27], Brakes India Ltd. Vs CCE Mysore - Final Order No.38/2010 dt.22.1.2010 and recent order in the case of Rane TRW Steering Systems Pvt. Ltd. Vs CCE Trichy [2010-ITS- 1139]. Following the ratio of the above decisions, I set aside the impugned order and allow the appeal....
M/S. Caterpillar India P. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Service Tax (Ltu), ...
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai
Decided on: Jun-01-2010
Vide the impugned order, the Commissioner (Appeals) has confirmed a demand of service tax of Rs.2,96,872/- together with interest on the ground that the assessees were using common inputs for providing both taxable output services as well as exempted output services and therefore the credit utilization was restricted to 20% or 35% as per Rule 6(3)(c) of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004. In addition, penalties have been imposed under the provisions of Section 76, 77 and 78 of the Finance Act, 1994. 2. I have heard both sides. The extended period of limitation has been applied against the assessees. The finding is that the assessee had suppressed the fact of provision of an exempt output service. However, I find that the assessees had throughout been disputing that they were using common inputs for an exempted output service and therefore the question of their suppressing the fact of providing an exempt service does not arise. The show-cause notice also does not allege the non-disclosure o...
- ‹ Prev
- 12
- 13
- 14
- 15
- 16
- 17
- 18
- 19
- 20
- 21
- Next ›