1. Services:
Training and Coaching Service:
1.1 WLC College India Ltd. vs. CST, Delhi 2012 (27) STR 377 (Tri.-Delhi)
The appellant in this case provided training and coaching in the field of Business, Fashion Technology, Advertisement and Graphic Design, Media, Hospitality and Hospital Administration to persons who have education at least up to 12th Standard. The Tribunal rejected the revenue plea that, only training in areas like welding, carpentry etc. where level of education required is low, qualified to be vocational training and held
that training and coaching provided by the appellant is vocational training entitled to benefit of exemption under Notification No. 9/2003-ST and No. 24/2003-ST
Management, Maintenance or Repair Service:
1.2 CCE, Ahmedabad-III vs. GE Nuova Pignone 2012 (27) STR 380 (Tri.-Ahmd.)
The Tribunal in this case held that, Gas Turbines erected and fixed to earth cannot be treated as equipment though described in agreement between the parties but are immovable properties and maintenance or repair thereof is not liable to service tax prior to 10/04/2006. Further, deduction under notification no. 12/2003-ST in respect of value of imported spare parts sold during the provision of service is available.
Intellectual Property Service:
1.3 Hero Honda Motors Ltd. Vs. CST, New Delhi 2012 (27) STR 409 (Tri.-Del.)
The appellant in this case entered into agreement with oil companies for use of Trade Mark “Hero Honda” and “Hero Honda 4T plus” for promotion and marketing of oil products and received royalty for use of trade mark. The Tribunal held that, permission to use trade mark is covered by definition of Intellectual Property Service. With regard to limitation it is held that, issue involved complicated interpretation of law and therefore failure not to be equated with mala fide suppression or mis-statement of facts.
Management Consultants Service:
1.4 Ernst & Young Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CST, New Delhi 2012 (27) STR 462 (Tri.-Del.)
The Tribunal in this case held that, compliance with law is part of management responsibility, and compliance responsibility per se not to be covered under ‘in connection with management of any organization’ in the definition of Management Consultants Service. Every management responsibility is not to be considered as management function.
Erection, Commissioning or Installation Service:
1.5 Synergic India Pvt. Ltd vs. CST, Pune-III 2012 (27) STR 508 (Tri.-Mumbai.)
In this case, the appellant manufacturers of solar water heater system sold the said system through dealers without collecting installation charges but said dealers collected installation charges from customer. The Tribunal held that, assessee is liable to tax on installation charges even though installation charges are not separately collected by assessee.
Goods Transport Agency Service:
1.6 Bazpur Co-operative Sugar Factory Ltd. Vs. CCE, Meerut-II 2012 (27) STR 517 (Tri.-Del.)
The appellant in this case received services of transportation of sugar cane from collection centers to factory by individual farmers, who have not issued consignment note for dispatch. The department contended that failure to comply with Rule 4B of STR, 1994 do not absolve receiver of service from tax liability. The Tribunal held that, definition of GTA in section 65(50b) of FA, 1994 and Rule 4B of STR, 1994 are logically inconsistent. Non-issuance of consignment notes excludes GTO from GTA services and requirement under rule 4B also not enforceable. Clear intention in Budget 2004 not to levy service tax on individual truck owners except where cargo booked by GTA in business of booking cargo and issuing consignment notes in normal case of business. (Stay granted).
2. Interest/Penalties/Others:
2.1 CCL Products (India) Ltd. Vs. CCE&ST (Appeals) Guntur 2012 (27) STR 342 (Tri-Bang.)
The Tribunal in this case held that, assessee a 100% EOU is entitled for service tax credit if tax paid on import of services from foreign based commission agent as services are clearly input services and they are also eligible for refund under rule 5 of CCR, 2004. Therefore, claim of revenue neutrality and absence of intention to evade tax is acceptable and there is no justification for imposition of penalty under section 78 and 76 of FA, 1994.
2.2 Shri Natraj Ceramic & Chemical Industries Ltd. Vs. CCE, Rajkot 2012 (27) STR 350 (Tri-Ahmd.)
The appellant in this case, paid service tax and interest by debiting cenvat credit account. The department objected payment of interest through cenvat account, therefore interest amount paid in cash. The Tribunal observed that, fact of payment under protest clear from assessee’s letter to Superintendent. It is therefore held that, time limit under section 11B of CEA, 1944 is inapplicable. Further, second payment being rectification of error, part of payment made originally, the entire amount is to be treated as under protest.
2.3 Gujarat NRE Coke Ltd. Vs. CCE, Rajkot 2012 (27) STR 372 (Tri-Ahmd.)
The appellant in this case made excess payment of tax under impression that, they had a centralized registration and sought to adjust it against subsequent months’ service tax liability. The Tribunal held that, denial of adjustment on the ground that no application has been made by appellant for seeking centralized registration is highly technical as there was no dispute about excess payment of service tax.
2.4 M. K. Telecom vs. CCE, Rajkot 2012 (27) STR 375 (Tri-Ahmd.)
The Tribunal in this case observed that, in earlier period several decision of Tribunal held that, impugned services were not liable to service tax, however in later period decisions held otherwise. It is held that, in that view, the appellant could have entertained bona fide belief that, services were not liable to tax during relevant period and it is fit case of exercise of jurisdiction under section 80.
2.5 CCE, Bangalore-III vs. Dhiren Gandhi 2012 (27) STR 452 (Kar.)
In this case, department demanded service tax from legal heir of deceased individual assessee. The Tribunal held that, there is no provision in law to demand duty due from deceased assessee from legal heir, unless they take over and continue to carry on very same business of the deceased and comply with statutory requirements. Section 11A of CEA, 1944 has not included them for persons chargeable to duty and if Courts allow such inclusion it would amount to re-writing of the provision, which is not permissible.
3. Cenvat Credit:
3.1 CCE, Bangalore- II vs. Pearl Insulation Ltd. 2012 (27) STR 337 (Kar.)
The High Court in this case held that, cenvat credit availed on inputs used in exempted products if reversed without utilization then there is no liability for interest. Interest is compensatory in nature imposed on assessee withholding tax as and when due.
3.2 CCE, Bangalore –III vs. Tata Auto Comp Systems Ltd. 2012 (27) STR 338 (Kar.)
In this case, assessee claimed cenvat credit of service tax paid on transportation service provided in the factory to their staff for pick up and drop from their residence to the factory and vice versa. The High Court held that, it is an input service in or in relation to manufacture, whether directly or indirectly of the final products within the meaning of rule 2(l) of CCR, 2004.
3.3 Hindalco Industries Ltd. Vs. CCE, Allahabad. 2012 (27) STR 401 (Tri-Del.)
The appellant in this case availed service tax credit on insurance policies concerning power plant exclusively supplying power to manufacturing unit situated at different location. The Tribunal observed that, in terms of section 2(8) of Electricity Act, 2003 power plant is captive power plant of assessee and power plant and manufacturing unit treatable as integrated unit and therefore cenvat credit is admissible.
3.4 Zenta Private Limited vs. CCE, Mumbai - V 2012 (27) STR 519 (Tri-Mumbai.)
The Appellant in this case utilized service tax credit for payment of service tax on export of business process outsourcing services though exempted from tax vide Notification No. 8/2003-ST. The Tribunal held that, as per rule 5 of CCR, 2004 assessee is entitled to input credit and similar view is also taken in Dell International Services India Private Limited 2010 (17) STR 540 (T).
No comments:
Post a Comment