1.1 CCE, Thiruvananthapuram vs. Kerala State Electricity
Board 2006 (3) STR 625 (Ker)
The Kerala High Court in this case held as under:
-
According to Rule 6(1), it is the authorized person;
i.e., respondent who is service receiver is liable to pay tax prior to
16-8-2002. After 16-8-2002 the responsibility to pay tax is cast on service
receiver as per rule 2(1)(d).
-
The agreement between service provider (foreign company)
and service receiver is clear to the effect that service tax liability to be
borne by receiver and not by the provider of service and therefore service
receiver is authorized person to meet tax liability as per the provision of
rule 6(1).
-
Office of service provider (foreign company) accommodated
in a room provided inside the premises of service receiver cannot be treated
as an office or registered office of a foreign company. Hence even after
16-8-2002, the service receiver is liable to tax.
1.2 Central Power Research Institute vs. CCE,
Bangalore–III, 2006 (3) STR 637 (Tri-Bang.)
The Tribunal in this case held that the appellant being
society, working on no profit basis under Ministry of Power and registered
under Society Registration Act is not a firm and is not liable to tax under
Consulting Engineers Service. It is further held that technical testing of
instruments is not covered under Consulting Engineers Service.
1.3 Anand Tissues Ltd. vs. CCE, Meerut-I 2006 (3) STR
648 (Tri-Del.)
The appellant engaged in procuring order for supply of
goods as agent. The Tribunal after relying on L&T Ltd. – 2006 (3) STR 321
(Tri-LB) held that in the SCN there is no reliance or finding on handling of
goods in any manner by the appellant and the adjudication proceedings to be
stayed within the scope of SCN, hence the demand of tax is not sustainable.
1.4 Vindhyachal Distilleries Pvt. Ltd. vs. State of MP
2006 (3) STR 723 (Tri-Del.)
In this case, the Tribunal held that bottling, labelling
and sealing of liquor by pilfer proof cap of glass bottles of volume, provided
by bottlers is independent activity and is not a part of process of
manufacture of liquor as defined in section 2(f) of Central Excise Act and
hence the said activity is liable to service tax under Packaging Activity.
1.5 Turbotech Precision Engg. P. Ltd. vs. CCE,
Bangalore-III 2006 (3) STR 765 (Tri-Bang.)
In this case, the appellant had undertaken contract for
design, development and supply of turbo power pack and spares and billing was
done part by part at various stages as per terms and conditions. The appellant
also paid excise duty on goods cleared. The department taxed the part of the
said contract as service under Consulting Engineer’s Service. The Tribunal
held that in view of decided case laws the works contract cannot be vivisected
to levy service tax on different activities.
2.1 Inani Carriers vs. CCE, Jaipur 2006 (3) STR 640
(Tri-Del)
In this case, the Commissioner has reviewed the
Order-in-Original after it was upheld by Commissioner (Appeals). The SCN for
review of Order-in-Original issued on 12-8-2005 whereas the Order-in-Appeal
was passed on 13-10-2004. The Tribunal held that, reviewing authority could
have preferred an appeal against Order-in-Appeal instead of resorting to
review an order, which is non-existent on date of issuance of show cause
notice.
2.2 Tops Security Ltd. vs. CCE, Hyderabad 2006 (3) STR
742 (Tri-Chennai)
The Tribunal in this case held that Commissioner (A) cannot
condone delay in filing appeal beyond maximum prescribed period; i.e., 6
months (including extension) from the date of receipt of decision or order.
2.3 Maa Communications Bozell Ltd. vs. CST, Bangalore
2006 (3) STR 748 (Tri-Bang.)
In this case, Commissioner issued SCN to raise demand
invoking larger period of limitation under section 73. Earlier on the same
issue adjudicating authority dropped the demand. The Tribunal held that, the
Commissioner should have reviewed the matter in terms of section 84 and
therefore order passed by Commissioner is not sustainable.
2.4 CCE & ST Bangalore vs. Standard Chartered Bank 2006
(3) STR 751 (Tri-Bang.)
In this case certain relief in terms of refund was granted
by Commissioner (Appeals). The Department filed appeal before Tribunal against
the said order and raised some new grounds. The Tribunal held that the
Assistant Commissioner should have implemented Commissioner (Appeals) order
and the Commissioner (Appeals) is not supposed to go into matters which were
not raised before him.
It is further held that appeal on grounds not raised before
lower appellate authority is not maintainable and the Tribunal is not
permitted to consider case laid for the first time in appeal.
2.5 CCE, Raipur vs. Blood Collection Centre 2006 (3) STR
776 (Tri-Del.)
In this case Commissioner (Appeals) reduced penalty levied
under section 76. The Tribunal in appeal filed by department against the said
order held that reduction in penalty is not in consonance with law and
provisions of section 76 and therefore reduction in penalty set aside.
2.6 Praseetha Suresh vs. CCE, Thiruvananthapuram 2006
(3) STR 777 (Tri-Bang.)
In this case, the Tribunal inter alia held that demand of
tax cannot be confirmed as Show Cause Notice has not specified period of
demand and not quantified amount of service tax.
