The instruction of the Board dated 31.10.07, sought to be relied upon by the department, is in the context of concluding proceedings on payment of service tax, interest and 25% of the amount as penalty on issue of show cause notice. In the present case, adjudication has been done by the original authority and penalties have been imposed under various sections including Section 78. Proviso to Section 78 clearly provides for payment of concessional penalty if the duty and interest determined by the authorities are paid within 30 days
. The respondent functions as loan processor between ICICI bank, Home Finance Co. Ltd. and the borrowers. The bank collects processing fee from the borrowers. Out of the amount so collected as processing fee, some portion is paid to the respondent as commission for their services. The department was of the view that the respondents rendered “Business Auxiliary Services” to the bank and, therefore, service tax was payable on the commission fee received by them from the bank. On being pointed out by the department, th
We find that review of an Order-in-Appeal involves application of mind and that the mind of the Committee of Commissioner was exercised so as to accept the impugned Order-in-appeal, and hence the question of once again reviewing the Order-in-Appeal does not arise. Further, the clarification is contrary to the decision of the apex Court in the case of Union of India Vs. Indian National Shipowners Association – 2010 (17) STR J57 (SC) = ( 2009-IST-07-SC-ST) , upholding the decision of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court w
It is not known as to why the Assistant Commissioner chose not to give a personal hearing which is a clear violation of Principles of Natural Justice. The original authority has shown total disregard for the principles of natural justice in not granting personal hearing before passing the adjudication order. There is no indication that the respondent was delaying the adjudication proceedings as the reply has been promptly submitted by the respondents as has been duly noted by the original authority. He has held that the respondents have not produced any evidence to prove that the charge raised by them on the main service provider has been included on the tenable value of the main service provider
The respondents is a manufacturer of satellite components and aircraft components classifiable under Chapter sub-heading 88033000 and they are paying excise duty on these goods. They are also providing service of renting of immovable property coming under Section 65(105) (zzzz) of Finance Act, 1994. The respondents have availed credit of excise duty paid on capital goods and inputs and service tax paid on input service.
Explore the CESTAT judgment upholding precedent decisions on EOU duty discharge and DTA sale eligibility. Know the legal insights in this insightful read.
Payment made by the first respondent/assessee was not voluntary and was forced to make the said payment. In such circumstances, the said payment can only be construed as one made under protest. When once the said conclusion based on the above facts are inevitable, then the second proviso to sub section 1 of Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, automatically comes into play.
Refund – export of services – relevant date – The Commissioner (Appeals) has held that in such a case the relevant date is the date when the payment of service (exported) is received by the assessee not the date when the service is provided. Against that order, Revenue is in appeal on the premise that the relevant date is the date of service tax paid as per Section 11B of Central Excise Act, 1944. – Held that: – it is very much clear in the case of export of service, the relevant date is the date when the payment of service exported has been received by the assessee.
It is settled law that the dutiability of the final products or inputs, the benefit of cenvat credit in respect of inputs and input services is made available, provided the assessee has necessary documentary evidence and necessary evidence to show utilisation of such input services and in this case, there is no finding that input services were not utilised in providing output services, for which service tax has been paid.
9. This Court in the Tax Appeal No.1367 of 2009 has taken the view that on a conjoint reading of sections 76 and 80 of the Act, it is not possible to envisage a discretion as being vested in the authority to levy a penalty below the minimum prescribed limit. If the authority imposing the penalty is not entitled to levy below the minimum prescrib
