Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai
..... this project, it is the submission of the appellant that it does not qualify to be a residential complex within the definition under section 65 (91a) of finance act, 1994. 18.2. the counsel also submits that the entire matter regarding kamakotivilasam project was brought to the notice of the departmental authorities vide letter dt. 23.12 ..... (or even prior to that) and who makes construction linked payment. the construction of complex service has been defined under section 65 (105) (zzzh) of the finance act any service provided or to be provided to any person, by any other person, in relation to construction of a complex. the construction of complex includes construction of ..... involved in supply of material where the main aspect is supply of service. 10.5. further the argument basically challenges the virus of certain taxing entries in finance act 1994, both for the period prior to 01-06-2007 and after that and tribunal is not an appropriate forum for such challenge. 10.6. so we .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai
..... has held the adjustment to be not appropriate and has confirmed the demand as well as interest and has imposed various penalties under sections 76, 77 and 78 of the finance act, 1994, leading to the present appeal. 7. the ld. advocate argues that once having issued the show cause notice on 12.10.06 and having dropped the matter, without filing .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai
the assessees herein paid service tax prior to the issue of show-cause notice and subsequently they have also paid interest. the issue in dispute in the appeal is as to whether they are liable to penalty. 2. i have heard both sides. i agree with the assessees that penalty cannot be sustained in the light of the tribunals orders in santhi casting works vs commissioner of central excise, coimbatore [2009 (15) s.t.r.219 (tri.-chennai)], m/s.u.b. engineering ltd. vs commissioner of central excise, rajkot [2009 tiol 1192 cestat ahm] which has been followed in m/s.volpak systems pvt. ltd., vs commissioner of service tax, ahmedabad [2010 tiol 534 cestat ahm] considering the provisions of section 73(3) of the finance act, 1994. 3. i, therefore, set aside the impugned order insofar as it relates to penalty, and allow the appeal.
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai
..... has been reversed on 30.4.08 prior to the issue of show-cause notice dt. 21.7.08. in these circumstances, the provisions of section 73 (3) of the finance act, 1944 are attracted so as to hold that assessees are not liable to any penal action. section 73 (3) reads as under :- section 73. recovery of service tax not levied .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai
..... from which they would be required to discharge the liability of service tax is 18.04.2006 which is the date on which section 66a to chapter v of the finance act, 1994 was enacted. 2. on hearing both sides, i find that the issue stands settled by the decision of the hon ble bombay high court in indian national shipowners association .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai
..... been confirmed against the appellants treating the appellants as a commercial training or coaching centre. she states that the definition of commercial training or coaching centre as given in the finance act, 1994, excludes many institutes or establishment which issues any certificate or diploma or degree or any educational qualification recognized by law for the time being in force. it is her ..... appellants were not produced earlier before the original authority. 5. considering the submissions from both sides and having regard to the definition of commercial training or coaching centre under the finance act, 1994, we are of the view that since the documents now produced by the appellants were not before the original authority, they are required to be given a second chance .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai
..... ) s.t.r. 235 (bom.)] held that recipient in india liable to service tax for service received from abroad only from 18.04.2006 after enactment of section 66a of finance act, 1994. we find that in the present case the assessee received service from the foreign company prior to 18.04.2006 and the demand of tax and penalties are not .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai
..... applications to raise additional ground that they received services from individual truck/tractor operators who do not fall within the definition of gta as per section 65(50b) of the finance act, 1994. since the applications are based upon the tribunals decision in commissioner of central excise and customs, guntur vs kanaka durga agro oil products pvt. ltd. [2009 (15) s .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai
the assessees are aggrieved by the imposition of penalties under the provisions of section 76 and 78 of the finance act, 1994, while the revenue has filed an appeal against reduction of penalties. 2. i have heard both sides. i find that out of the total liability of rs.2,04, .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai
..... service tax under the management consultancy service. the period covered also relates to the initial period of levy and hence the appellants satisfy the condition under section 80 of the finance act, 1994 for waiver of penalties imposed. 3. heard shri v.v. hariharan, learned jt. cdr appearing for the department. he fairly agrees that the amounts attributable to deputation of staff ..... and pay the tax amounts in respect of the new levy on management consultancy service. accordingly, in terms of section 80 of the finance act, 1994, we waive the penalties imposed under section 76, 77 and 78 of the said act. 6. in the result, the demands of rs.4,73,786.80 and rs.3,44,130/- are upheld and the demand .....
Tag this Judgment!