1.1 All India Tax Payers Welfare Association vs. UOI
2006 (4) STR 14 (Mad)
In a writ petition filed by the Association, the Madras
High Court held that provider of service is only assessee according to section
65 and he has to collect service tax from users of service. It is further held
that the plea of the petitioner that provider of service should pay service
tax from his income without collecting tax from the user of service is not
sustainable.
1.2 Thermal Contractors Association vs. Dir. Rajya
Vidyut Utpadan Nigam Ltd. 2006 (4) STR 18 (All)
The Allahabad Court in this case held that though payer of
service tax is entitled to realize service tax from its customers, yet it all
depends upon contracts entered into between parties. Service providers are
free to charge or not to charge the amount of tax from customers, but they
have to pay service tax irrespective of its collection.
1.3 Surat Municipal Corp. vs. CCE Surat 2006 (4) STR 44
(Tri-Del)
In this case the appellant let out halls and stadiums for
consideration for various social and official functions such as sports, garbas,
educational programmes, cultural and religious programmes. The Tribunal held
that such activities are covered under the definition of Mandap Keeper.
1.4 CCEC, Vadodara vs. Larsen & Toubro Ltd. 2006 (4) STR
63 (Tri-Mumbai)
The Tribunal after relying on judgment in the case of
Daelim Industrial Co. Ltd. 2004 (170) ELT A181 (SC) held that contract for
construction of solvent dewaxing/deoiling unit and hydro-treater amine
treating unit is composite contract and not liable to tax under consulting
engineers service.
1.5 Orient Crafts Ltd. vs. UOI 2006 (4) STR 81 (Del.)
In writ petition filed before Delhi High Court, the Court
held that section 66A and Rules framed with regard to services provided from
outside India and received in India are clear and are not unconstitutional.
1.6 Usha Breco Ltd. vs. CCE, Meerut-I 2006 (4) STR 88
(Tri-Del.)
The appellant provided ropeway services to hill temples.
They also arranged for transit journey between ropeway boarding points in the
maxi-cabs. The department taxed them under tour operator service. The Tribunal
held that transit journey is incidental and there is no tour between ropeway
boarding points. It is further held that though the tour is statutorily
defined no artificial meaning to the word ‘tour’ given in law so as to make
any movement in tourist bus a tour.
1.7 Idea Mobile Communications Ltd. vs. CCE, Trivandrum
2006 (4) STR 132 (Tri-Bang.)
The Tribunal after relying on the Supreme Court judgment in
BSNL’s case 2006 (2) STR 161 (SC) held that imposition of service tax and
sales tax were constitutionally mutually exclusive and as sales tax is paid on
the SIM Cards, service tax is not imposable.
1.8 IVL India Pvt. Ltd. vs. CCE, Thiruvananthapuram 2006
(4) STR 151 (Tri-Bang.)
In this case appellant under MOU with ER & DCI jointly
imparted training and other course material to participants and provided
Faculties for training and shared the fees received from students. The
Tribunal held that service of providing training & coaching and sharing of
fees not covered under the category of consulting engineer as for that service
provider should render services, which are in advisory capacity as an expert.
1.9 In Re: Indian Institute of Management. 2006 (4) STR
166 (Commr. Appl.)
The appellant a registered society collected fees from
organizations participating in Campus recruitment programme. The Revenue taxed
them under Manpower Recruitment Agency Service. The Commissioner (Appeals)
observed that during the impugned period liability was on commercial concern
and the appellant is not engaged in any trade or commerce and is not a
commercial concern. It is further held that SCN is void of allegation of fraud
or suppression with intent to evade tax as reasonable cause for failure to get
registered was accepted by the Adjudicating Authority and hence extended
period of limitation is not applicable.
1.10 In Re: K. Surendra Nayak 2006 (4) STR 170 (Commr.
Appl.)
In this case the appellant a Practising Chartered
Accountant undertook a contract for outsourcing operation of ledger
maintenance relating to billing activities of service receiver. The
Commissioner (A) held that relationship between appellant and service receiver
is not that of a practising chartered accountant and client but that of an
agent and his principal. It is further held that ledger maintenance per se is
not a taxable service of accounting done by a CA in his professional capacity.
2.1 CCE Jaipur vs. Data Infosys Ltd. 2006 (4) STR 34
(Tri-Del.)
The assessee Internet Service Provider claimed service tax
credit of tax paid leased phone lines. The department relying on rule 3(2) of
the erstwhile Service Tax Credit Rules, 2002 denied the credit as input and
output services were not falling in the same category. The Tribunal observed
that without leased phone lines the service provider cannot render his service
and therefore entitled to service tax credit.
2.2 Indian Rayon & Industries Ltd. vs. CCE Bhavnagar
2006 (4) STR 79 (Tri-Mumbai)
In this case the Tribunal held that service tax paid on
mobile phone is available as credit to eligible service providers of output
service and manufacturers in absence of any express prohibition under CENVAT
Credit Rules, 2004. It is further held that Boards Circular No. 59/8/2003-ST
dated 20-6-2003 was relevant only under the erstwhile Service Tax Credit
Rules, 2002 and cannot be made applicable to CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004.
3.1 Dolphine Detective Agency vs. CCE Belgaum 2006 (4)
STR 25 (Tri-Bang.)
In this case, department issued notice in year 2000 calling
the appellant to register w.e.f. 16-10-1998. In reply filed to that notice
they claimed exemption under notification 58/98. Thereafter a Show Cause
Notice was issued on 22-1-2004 for demanding service tax for the period from
16-10-1998 to 30-9-2002. The Tribunal held that all the relevant facts were in
knowledge of authorities and hence no suppression and therefore demand of
service tax is time barred.
3.2 CCE, Kanpur vs. Kemco Agencies 2006 (4) STR 51
(Tri-Del)
In this case Tribunal held that penalty under section 76
cannot be reduced to less than Rs. 100/- per day and therefore remanded the
matter to Commissioner (A) for reconsideration.
3.3 Hexacom India Ltd. vs. CCE, Jaipur 2006 (4) STR 99
(Tri-Del)
In this case there was delay in filing appeal as the lower
staff did not bring to the notice of the responsible person the adjudication
order. The Tribunal rejected condonation application and held that
inefficiency in appellant’s organization is not a sufficient cause for late
filing of appeal.
3.4 Fountainhead Design Services Pvt. Ltd. vs. CCE,
Delhi-II 2006 (4) STR 121 (Tri-Del)
The Tribunal in this case inter alia held that there is no
threshold limit for hearing appeal in service tax matters and admitted an
appeal filed against an order imposing penalty of Rs. 27,100/-.
3.5 NRC Ltd. vs. CCE, Thane-I 2006 (4) STR 145
(Tri-Mumbai)
In the present case Rectification Application filed as the
plea with regard to service tax being barred by limitation was taken before
Tribunal but Tribunal not referred to said plea while passing the judgment.
The Tribunal allowed Rectification Application.
