1.1 Malabar Management Services Pvt. Ltd.
vs. CST, Chennai 2008 (9) STR 483 (Tri-Chennai)
The appellant in this case was engaged in
rendering services of promotion of loans of client bank. They have
received certain amount during the period July, 2003 to March,
2005 towards reimbursements of salaries and infrastructural
expenses, on which no tax has been paid. The Tribunal relying on
various Tribunal decisions and CBEC circulars clarifying on
non-taxability of reimbursement of expenses held that, no tax is
payable on such reimbursement under Business Auxiliary Service
during the said period.
1.2 Air Liquide Engg. India P. Ltd. vs.
CC&CE, Hyderabad-II 2008 (9) STR 486 (Tri-Bang.)
The appellant in this case carried out works
contract on turnkey basis; i.e., supply of Air separation/gas
separation plants and erection, installation and commissioning of
such plant. The major part of the contracts was relating to
erection of various items of plants. The department sought to tax
them under Consulting Engineers Service. The Tribunal held as
under:
-
CBEC Circular clarified that erection,
installation and commissioning is not covered under Consulting
Engineer services.
-
Contracts of such nature are specifically
covered under Works Contract service, which came into service
tax net from 1-6-2007.
1.3 Dalveer Singh vs. CCE, Jaipur 2008 (9)
STR 491 (Tri-Del.)
In this case, the appellant was engaged in
transportation of material from railway station to customers’
warehouse. The department contended that loading and unloading is
also provided hence, appellant is covered under Cargo Handling
Agency Service. The Tribunal relying on CBEC Circular dated
1-8-2002 clarifying that mere transportation of goods is excluded
from Cargo Handling service held that appellant is not liable
under Cargo Handling service.
1.4 Electrical Inspectorate, Govt. of
Karnataka vs. CST, Bangalore 2008 (9) STR 494 (Tri-Bang.)
The appellant a State Government Department was
carrying on sovereign activity of inspection and certification of
electrical installations as per law. The Tribunal relying on
various decisions and CBEC circular dated 18-12-2006 held that
activities of sovereign/public authorities cannot be taxed to
service tax.
1.5 Power Best Electrical Ltd. vs. CCE,
Calicut 2008 (9) STR 497 (Tri-Bang.)
The appellant an electrical contractor provided
services in relation to erection of transformer and electrical
wiring or installation of bulbs and fans during the period
1-7-2003 to 31-1-2005. The Tribunal relying on CBEC Circulars held
that such activities are not covered under Consulting engineer
service.
1.6 CCE, Tirupathi vs. Umakanth & Co. 2008
(9) STR 527 (Tri-Bang.)
The assessee a chartered accountant firm has
undertaken activities relating to billing and accounting work,
ledger and record maintenance and data processing. The Tribunal
observed that such activities are carried out by persons other
than practising chartered accountants and also by unskilled
employees on contract basis. It is therefore held that, such
activities are not performed in the course of duties performed by
chartered accountant and therefore not liable to service tax.
1.7 Sainik Mining & Allied Services Ltd. vs.
CCEC & ST BBSR 2008 (9) STR 531
(Tri-Kolkata)
The Tribunal in this case held as under:
-
Deployment of
machines and tipper trucks for transport of coal from quarry
beds to surface stock/railways sidings is mechanical transfer of
coal and covered under Mining Services and not under Cargo
Handling Services. Movement of coal within mine area is dominant
activity and loading and unloading is merely incidental.
-
Cargo in
commercial parlance means as one which is carried as freight in
ship, plane, rail or truck.
1.8 Diebold
Systems P. Ltd. vs. CST, Chennai 2008 (9) STR 546 (Tri-Chennai)
The Tribunal in
this case held as under:
-
Works Contract
for supply, erection and commissioning of Automatic Teller
Machines (ATM) for banks is indivisible contract and service tax
is not leviable on indivisible works contract before
1-6-2007. Even ATM related services were also liable to service
tax from 1-5-2006. Therefore service tax demand on such activity
under Erection, Commissioning and Installation service is not
sustainable.
-
Introduction of
new entry presupposes non-coverage by pre-existing entries.
Addition of item in list of taxable service is just an addition
and not subtraction from pre-existing entry.
2.1 Rakesh Rao vs. CCE, Nashik 2008 (9) STR
478 (Tri-Mumbai)
In this case, penalty has been enhanced equal
to service tax in revisionary proceedings. The Tribunal observed
that the appellant has paid service tax along with interest on
28-5-2004 and held that the Amnesty scheme providing for
non-imposition of penalty if service tax paid with interest before
31-10-2004 is applicable to the appellant and set aside the
order-in-revision.
2.2 CCE, Bhopal vs. Naaz Travels Agency 2008
(9) STR 507 (Tri- Del.)
In this case, assessee a partnership firm came
into existence in the year 2004 and entered into contracts for
providing Rent-a-cab service in the year 2005. The department
demanded service tax on services provided during 2002-03 by one of
the partners in his individual capacity from the partnership firm.
The Tribunal held that demand for 2002-03 against assessee is not
sustainable and liability ought to have been fastened on the
person having agreement for such services.
2.3 Shrandeep Manpower Consultancy Pvt. Ltd.
vs. CCE, Pune 2008 (9) STR 566
(Tri- Mumbai)
The appellant in this case filed Rectification
Application and contended that Supreme Court decision in 2004
(163) ELT A53 (SC) holding that penalty not imposable if duty is
paid before show cause notice has not been considered in
Tribunal’s order. The Tribunal held that, Supreme Court’s decision
is not automatically applicable to service tax as provisions in
Central Excise Act are different from service tax provisions and
rejected the Rectification Application.
2.4 SBEC Sugar Ltd. vs. CCE, Meerut-I 2008
(9) STR 573 (Tri- Del)
In this case, the appeal was signed by the
counsel and contended that his signature is sufficient as
vakalatnama was submitted. The Registry insisted for signature of
appellant on the appeal. The Tribunal held that signature of
appellant is must and sent the matter to Registry to rectify the
defect in appeal.
2.5 CCE, Belapur vs. Mahalakshmi Dyg. & Ptg.
(I) Pvt. Ltd. 2008 (9) STR 587 (Tri- Mumbai)
In this case, the Commissioner (Appeals)
dismissed appeal filed by Revenue on the ground that appeal filed
by assessee was already decided and doctrine of merger is
applicable. The Tribunal observed that, the assessee’s appeal was
on account of imposition of penalty whereas Revenue’s appeal was
related to determination of duty and therefore the doctrine of
merger is not applicable and remanded the matter for decision on
merits.
