Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai
in this case, the person providing services to the assessees herein is situated outside india and has no office in india. the period of demand of tax is 2003-04. therefore, the decision of the hon ble bombay high court in indian national ship owners association vs union of india [2009 (13) s.t.r.235 (bom.)] holding that recipient in india is liable to service tax for services from abroad only with effect from 18.04.2006 when section 66a of the finance act, 1994 was enacted, is squarely attracted to the facts of the present case and following the ratio thereof, i set aside the impugned order of demand of tax together with interest and penalty and allow the appeal.
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai
..... any appeal against this order of the commissioner (appeals). 3. in the meanwhile, the commissioner of central excise exercised powers of revision conferred on him under section 84 of the finance act, 1994 and the reviewed the order of adjudicating authority for imposing penalty. a show cause notice was issued and on adjudication a penalty of rs.25 lakhs has been imposed .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai
penalties imposed by the order-in-revision under the provisions of section 76, 77 and 78 of chapter v to the finance act, 1994 are challenged in the present appeal. the appellant is an individual (proprietor of a proprietary concern) who undertakes loading and unloading of cargo for others; the service tax demand .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai
..... april 2000-01 under the provision to section 73 (1) together with interest, and imposing penalties under the provisions of sections 76, 77 and 78 of chapter v of the finance act, 1994. hence these appeals. 3. i have heard both sides. the finding of the commissioner (appeals) on limitation is contained in paragraph 10 of the impugned order which ..... therefore, the impugned show-cause notice was issued to the assessee by invoking the extended period of time limit as provided for such situation under section 73 of the finance act stood at the relevant point of time and after 10.09.2004. i observe that the failure on the part of the assessee to remit the service tax due ..... statutory return the assessee had suppressed the facts with willful intent to evade payment of service tax and the extended period of time limit under section 73 of the act is very much invocable in this case for demand of service tax for the disputed period. the above finding is not sustainable once the honble high court of .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai
the issue in dispute is as to whether a service recipient in india is liable to service tax for services received from abroad for the period prior to 18.04.2006. on hearing both sides, i note that this issue stands decided against the revenue by the apex court decision in union of india vs indian national shipowners association [2010 (17) s.t.r. j57 (s.c.)] in which the apex court upheld the decision of the hon ble bombay high court holding that no levy of service tax arose in such as case prior to enactment of section 66a of the finance act, 1994 with effect from 18.04.2006. 2. following the ratio of the above decision, i uphold the impugned order and reject the appeal.
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai
..... (bom.)] holding that service tax liability on services provided by foreign service provider arises only w.e.f. 18.4.2006, the date of enactment of section 66a of the finance act, 1994. the high court s decision has been upheld by the honble apex court as seen from 2009-tiol-129-sc-st. 2. following the ratio of the above .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai
the issue in dispute in the present appeal namely as to whether 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 honble apex court reported in 2009-tiol-129-sc-st in the case of union of india and others vs indian national ship owners association, upholding the judgment of the honble bombay high court [2009 (13) str 235 (bom.)] 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, i see no legal infirmity in the order of the commissioner (appeals) setting aside the demand, and accordingly dismiss this appeal.
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai
1. the assessees challenge the penalty of rs.1,90,696/- imposed under the provisions of section 76 of the finance act, 1994. the period of dispute is apr.-06 to sept.-06. 2. i have heard both sides. the plea of the assessees for reworking out of the penalty for the .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai
per jyoti balasundaram 1. the application for stay of operation of the impugned order is dismissed and the appeal of the revenue itself is dismissed, as the issue in dispute stands settled against the revenue by the apex courts decision in union of india vs indian national shipowners association [2010 (17) str j57 (sc)]. the supreme court has taken the same view in the case of commissioner vs bhandari hosiery exports ltd. [2010 (20) str j99 (sc)] - it has been held that service tax cannot be levied on import of services prior to 18.4.2006 and service tax became leviable on such services only on the date above mentioned with the introduction of section 66a in the finance act,1994.
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai
..... the adjudicating authority to decide the matter afresh in the light of retrospective amendment to the rules along with application filed by the assessee under section 73 of the finance act, 2010. in the present case the period of dispute is march, 2000 to jan. 01 under rule 57cc/57ad of the erstwhile central excise rules, 1944 ..... during the period from march, 2000 to jan. 01 under rule 57ah of the erstwhile central excise rules, 1944 read with section 11a of the central excise act, 1944 along with interest and penalty. it has been alleged that the respondent were manufacturing exempted and dutiable finished products and they have contravened the provisions of rule ..... is engaged in the manufacture of fluorescent tube lights (dutiable) and general lighting service lamps (nil duty) classifiable under heading no.85.39 of the central excise tariff act, 1985. they were availing cenvat credit benefit. a show cause notice dated 26.03.2001, was issued proposing an amount of rs.30,94,760/- for the .....
Tag this Judgment!