Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Section Wise 2009 2009 (7) This

Law	-- All -- GST Income Tax Benami Property Customs Corporate Laws Securities / SEBI Insolvency & Bankruptcy FEMA PMLA Service Tax Central Excise CST, VAT & Sales Tax Wealth tax Indian Laws
Court	-- Any -- Supreme Court SC Orders / Highlights High Court Appellate Tribunal Tribunal Appellate authority for Advance Ruling Advance Ruling Authority National Financial Reporting Authority Competition Commission of India ANTI-PROFITEERING AUTHORITY Commission Central Government Board DISTRICT/ SESSIONS Court Commissioner / Appellate Authority Other
Citation	--Year-- 2024 2023 2022 2021 2020 2019 2018 2017 2016 2015 2014 2013 2012 2011 2010 2009 2008 2007 2006 2005 2004 2003 2002 2001 2000 1999 1998 1997 1996 1995 1994 1993 1992 1991 1990 1989 1988 1987 1986 1985 1984 1983 1982 1981 1980 1979 1978 1977 1976 1975 1974 1973 1972 1971 1970 1969 1968 1967 1966 1965 1964 1963 1962 1961 1960 1959 1958 1957 1956 1955 1954 1953 1952 1951 1950 Upto 1949 - -Volume- 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 -
Landmark	Nil - N/A Referred in >= 3 Cases Referred in >= 4 Cases Referred in >= 5 Cases Referred in >= 10 Cases Referred in >= 15 Cases Referred in >= 25 Cases Referred in >= 50 Cases Referred in >= 100 Cases
Order by	TMI Citation Date of Decision

Advanced Search Options

Case Laws

Showing 301 to 320 of 984 Records

• 2009 (7) TMI 1099
  
  Issues Involved:
  1. Whether the payment of Rs. 50 lakhs by the assessee to M/s. M. M. Rubber Co. Ltd. constitutes an intangible asset eligible for depreciation u/s 32 of the Income-tax Act, 1961.
  
  Summary:
  
  Issue 1: Nature of Payment and Eligibility for Depreciation u/s 32

  The assessee, engaged in publishing, renewed its leave and licence agreement with M/s. M. M. Rubber Co. Ltd. for its Chennai branch office, paying a lump sum of Rs. 50 lakhs and a monthly rent of Rs. 47,500. The assessee claimed this lump sum as an "intangible asset" and sought depreciation of Rs. 6,25,000. The Assessing Officer (AO) rejected this claim, stating that the payment was merely a rent advance/lease deposit and did not constitute an intangible asset as defined u/s 32.

  The Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) (CIT(A)) accepted the assessee's contention, interpreting the payment as an intangible asset eligible for depreciation, citing the Finance (No. 2) Act, 1998, which broadened the scope of depreciation to include intangible assets. The CIT(A) viewed the agreement as a licence, thus falling within the definition of intangible assets u/s 32.

  The Revenue appealed, arguing that the licence under a lease and licence agreement does not transfer ownership and thus does not qualify for depreciation u/s 32. They contended that the payment was a refundable rent advance, not an acquisition of an intangible asset.

  The Tribunal examined the provisions of section 32(1)(ii) and Explanation 3, noting that intangible assets eligible for depreciation include know-how, patents, copyrights, trade marks, licences, franchises, or similar business/commercial rights. Applying the principle of ejusdem generis, the Tribunal concluded that the term "licences" in this context refers to rights similar to know-how, patents, etc., and not to tenancy rights. The Tribunal found that the payment of Rs. 50 lakhs was a refundable deposit for acquiring a leasehold property, not an intangible asset.

  The Tribunal held that the assessee did not acquire any asset, tangible or intangible, and thus, the payment did not qualify for depreciation u/s 32(1)(ii). The Tribunal restored the AO's order, disallowing the depreciation claim and setting aside the CIT(A)'s order.

  In conclusion, the Tribunal decided the appeal in favor of the Revenue, affirming that the payment of Rs. 50 lakhs was a lease deposit and not an intangible asset eligible for depreciation.

  ---

• 2009 (7) TMI 1098
  
  Issues Involved:
  1. Mistaken identity in the assessment order.
  2. Wrongful service of assessment and penalty orders.
  3. Legality of actions taken against the appellant for recovery of taxes and penalties.
  4. Locus standi of the appellant to challenge the penalty order.
  5. Confirmation of penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act.
  
  Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:
  
  1. Mistaken Identity in the Assessment Order:
  The appellant argued that the assessment order was passed in the name of Hiralal Ebha Mistry based on a VDIS declaration, which did not belong to him. The Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) and the Tribunal found that the Assessing Officer failed to prove that the appellant, Hirachand Ebha Wadhel, and Hiralal Ebha Mistry were the same person. The evidence, including the appellant's affidavit and identification documents, supported the appellant's claim of mistaken identity.
  
  2. Wrongful Service of Assessment and Penalty Orders:
  The appellant contended that the assessment and penalty orders, although issued in the name of Hiralal Ebha Mistry, were wrongly served on him. The Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) acknowledged that the orders were served on the appellant without proving that both individuals were the same person, requiring proper investigation by the Assessing Officer.
  
  3. Legality of Actions Taken Against the Appellant for Recovery of Taxes and Penalties:
  The appellant's residential flat was attached, and his refund was withheld by the Tax Recovery Officer. The Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) and the Tribunal noted that these actions were taken against the appellant without establishing that he was liable for the taxes and penalties assessed against Hiralal Ebha Mistry. The Tribunal emphasized that the appellant could not be treated as an "assessee" within the meaning of section 2(7) of the Income-tax Act, and the dispute over the ownership of the flat and withholding of the refund could not be adjudicated by the Tribunal.
  
  4. Locus Standi of the Appellant to Challenge the Penalty Order:
  The learned Departmental representative raised a preliminary objection regarding the appellant's locus standi to file the appeal. The Tribunal concluded that the appellant had no locus standi to challenge the penalty order passed against Hiralal Ebha Mistry, as he was not an "assessee" under section 2(7) of the Act. The appellant was neither a legal heir nor a representative-assessee and had no demand raised against him.
  
  5. Confirmation of Penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act:
  The Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) confirmed the penalty order against Hiralal Ebha Mistry, stating that there was concealment of income attracting penalty under section 271(1)(c). The Tribunal upheld this decision, noting that the penalty was levied on Hiralal Ebha Mistry and not on the appellant. The Tribunal reiterated that the appellant had no standing to challenge the penalty order.
  
  Conclusion:
  The Tribunal dismissed the appeal as not maintainable, concluding that the appellant had no locus standi to challenge the penalty order against Hiralal Ebha Mistry. The assessment and penalty orders were confirmed in the name of Hiralal Ebha Mistry, and the actions taken against the appellant, such as the attachment of his flat and withholding of his refund, could not be adjudicated by the Tribunal. The order was pronounced in the open court on July 8, 2009.

  ---

• 2009 (7) TMI 1097
  
  Issues Involved:
  1. Jurisdiction of notice issued u/s 147.
  2. Applicability of section 147.
  3. Authority of Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) to direct issuance of notice u/s 147.
  4. Confirmation of income determination by the Assessing Officer.
  5. Timeliness of notice issued u/s 143(2).
  
  Summary:
  
  1. Jurisdiction of Notice Issued u/s 147:
  The assessee challenged the jurisdiction of the notice issued u/s 147 by the Assessing Officer on the direction of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals). The Tribunal agreed with the assessee, citing the Supreme Court's interpretation in Rajinder Nath v. CIT [1979] 120 ITR 14 (SC), which limits the meaning of "finding" and "direction" in section 153(3). The Tribunal concluded that the direction from the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) was beyond jurisdiction and did not bind the Assessing Officer.
  
  2. Applicability of Section 147:
  The Tribunal examined various case laws, including Hindustan Lever Ltd. v. R. B. Wadkar, Asst. CIT (No. 1) [2004] 268 ITR 332 (Bom) and Devidayal Rolling Mills v. Y. R. Saini, Asst. CIT [2006] 285 ITR 514 (Bom), which emphasized that the Assessing Officer must establish a failure on the part of the assessee to disclose material facts for reopening assessments beyond four years. The Tribunal found that the Assessing Officer did not independently satisfy this requirement, rendering the notice u/s 147 invalid.
  
  3. Authority of Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) to Direct Issuance of Notice u/s 147:
  The Tribunal held that the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) does not have the power to direct the Assessing Officer to issue a notice u/s 147. This power exclusively vests in the Assessing Officer, and any such direction must be accompanied by the Assessing Officer's satisfaction regarding income escapement. The Tribunal cited Chunnilal Onkarmal P. Ltd. v. ITO [1983] 139 ITR 380 (MP) to support this view.
  
  4. Confirmation of Income Determination by the Assessing Officer:
  The Tribunal noted that the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) had already deleted the income determination of Rs. 1,76,458 by the Assessing Officer. Therefore, the confirmation of this income determination was erroneous and beyond the jurisdiction of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals).
  
  5. Timeliness of Notice Issued u/s 143(2):
  The Tribunal found that the notice issued u/s 143(2) was barred by time, as it was served after one year. This procedural lapse further invalidated the assessment order dated March 29, 2006.
  
  Conclusion:
  The Tribunal allowed the assessee's appeal, canceling the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) and holding that the notice issued u/s 147 was without jurisdiction. The Tribunal also noted that the notice u/s 143(2) was time-barred, thus deciding in favor of the assessee on all grounds.
  
  Order Pronouncement:
  The order was pronounced in the open court on July 14, 2009.

  ---

• 2009 (7) TMI 1096
  
  Issues:
  - Stay petition against waiver of pre-deposit of service tax, education cess, and penalty under Sections 73(2), 75, and 76 of the Finance Act, 1994.
  - Classification of services under the category of "Scientific or Technical Consultancy."
  - Prima facie case for waiver of pre-deposit and stay of recovery till appeal disposal.
  
  Analysis:
  The judgment pertains to a stay petition challenging the waiver of pre-deposit of significant amounts related to service tax, education cess, and penalty under various sections of the Finance Act, 1994. The appellant argued that the services provided did not fall under the category of "Scientific or Technical Consultancy," citing previous rulings in their favor. The Adjudicating Authority, however, contended that the services did indeed fall under this category. Upon review, the Tribunal found that the services rendered included activities such as micro-enterprise development, training programs, research studies, and technology facilitation, indicating a broader scope beyond mere consultancy services. Consequently, the Tribunal concluded that the appellant had established a prima facie case for the waiver of the pre-deposit amounts. As a result, the application for waiver was allowed, and recovery of the amounts was stayed pending the appeal's final disposal.
  
  The judgment highlights the crucial issue of classifying services under specific categories for taxation purposes, particularly the distinction between "Scientific or Technical Consultancy" and other related activities. The Tribunal's detailed analysis of the services provided by the appellant underscores the importance of a comprehensive understanding of the nature and scope of services in question when determining tax liabilities. By considering the various services offered and their alignment with government-sponsored welfare programs, the Tribunal concluded that the appellant's activities extended beyond traditional consultancy, warranting a favorable decision on the waiver of pre-deposit.
  
  Moreover, the judgment showcases the procedural aspect of granting stays and waivers in tax matters pending appeal resolution. The Tribunal's decision to stay the recovery of the amounts in question until the appeal's final disposal reflects a balanced approach to safeguarding the appellant's interests while ensuring compliance with tax obligations. By linking the current appeal with a related case for consolidated disposal, the Tribunal demonstrates efficiency in handling similar issues and promoting timely resolution of tax disputes. Overall, the judgment provides valuable insights into the nuanced considerations involved in tax appeals, service classification, and procedural aspects of stay petitions in the realm of indirect taxation.

  ---

• 2009 (7) TMI 1095
  
  Issues Involved:
  Entitlement to abatement granted by Notification No. 32/04 in respect of GTA Service.
  
  Analysis:
  
  The judgment concerns two appeals focusing on the entitlement of the appellant to abatement granted by Notification No. 32/04 dated 3-12-2004 regarding GTA Service. The Tribunal had previously considered the crucial aspect while passing a stay order, prompting the disposal of the appeals to avoid prolonging the conflict. The Board Notification clearly outlines the relief for GTA Service providers upon fulfilling the required declaration criteria. The appeal record of M/s. Jain Steel demonstrated compliance with the declaration requirements, supported by a Chartered Accountant's Certificate, as noted in the impugned order. The presence of these documents and declarations was crucial in the decision-making process.
  
  The Tribunal referenced a previous decision in the case of Areva T&D India Ltd. v. CCE, Allahabad, emphasizing the necessity of complying with the declaration requirement to avail the relief specified in the Notification. The substance of the declaration was deemed more significant than its format, ensuring fairness to both parties. Given the presence of the required declarations on record, fulfilling the notification's purpose, the Tribunal ruled in favor of allowing both appeals, thereby setting aside the impugned orders. Consequently, both Miscellaneous Applications for extension of stay were rendered moot following the disposal of the appeals.
  
  In conclusion, the judgment delves into the specific issue of entitlement to abatement under Notification No. 32/04 for GTA Service providers. By examining the compliance with declaration requirements and emphasizing the essence of the declaration over its format, the Tribunal resolved the appeals in favor of the appellant. The decision underscores the importance of adhering to legal requirements for availing specified reliefs, ensuring a fair and just outcome in line with the applicable notifications and precedents.

  ---

• 2009 (7) TMI 1094
  
  Issues involved: Classification of services under business auxiliary service and entitlement to Cenvat credit.
  
  Classification of services under business auxiliary service: The appellant, acting as an intermediary in transmitting messages through cellular agencies, was brought under the purview of tax as a "business auxiliary service" provider. The appellant argued for entitlement to input credit, citing Section 65(105)(109a) of the Finance Act, 1994. The appellant contended that similar services should be reasonably classified in the respective category, referencing a previous case involving Cellebrum Technologies Ltd. The Tribunal directed the appellant to make a pre-deposit of Rs. 20 lakhs, pending further proceedings, without expressing a final opinion on the matter.
  
  Entitlement to Cenvat credit: The appellant raised the issue of entitlement to Cenvat credit, emphasizing the need for proper classification of services. The appellant sought waiver of pre-deposit, highlighting arguable grounds related to Cenvat credit and service classification. The Joint CDR argued for pre-deposit under the category of business auxiliary services, citing similarity to a previous case.
  
  Conclusion: The Tribunal noted the introduction of a new service category under Section 65(105)(zzzq) of the Finance Act, 1994, related to support services of business or commerce. While indicating that the appellant may not be immune from taxation under the new definition, the Tribunal directed the appellant to make a pre-deposit of Rs. 20 lakhs in two equal instalments. The realization of the balance demand was stayed pending compliance with the pre-deposit requirement.

  ---

• 2009 (7) TMI 1093
  
  The Appellate Tribunal CESTAT BANGALORE allowed the application for restoration of appeal by the Revenue, which was dismissed earlier for non-production of approval from the Committee of Disputes. The Tribunal found that there is no mechanism for seeking clearance from the Committee of Disputes for disputes between the State Government's Public Sector Unit and the Revenue. The appeals were restored to their original numbers.

  ---

• 2009 (7) TMI 1092
  
  The applicant sought waiver of pre-deposit of tax of Rs. 1,22,483/- along with interest and penalties. The applicant, a distributor of M/s. Amway India Enterprises, paid the tax and penalty upon becoming aware of it. The Tribunal directed the applicant to deposit the interest amount within six weeks, and waived the pre-deposit of the balance penalties until the appeal's disposal. Compliance to be reported by 25-8-2009.

  ---

• 2009 (7) TMI 1091
  
  Issues:
  1. Interpretation of the term 'assessee'
  2. Sustainability of the SCN-cum-Demand Notice
  3. Time-barred nature of subsequent SCN
  4. Applicability of the ratio laid down in a specific case
  5. Imposition of penalties under Sections 76 and 77
  6. Legality of issuing a subsequent SCN covering the same issue, amount, and period
  7. Time-bar aspect of the subsequent SCN
  
  Interpretation of the term 'assessee':
  The appellant contended that the interpretation of the term 'assessee' by the Assistant Commissioner was incorrect, arguing that the person paying the freight to the transporter is the recipient of the transporter's service. This issue raised questions regarding the correct identification of the party liable for the service tax.
  
  Sustainability of the SCN-cum-Demand Notice:
  The appellant argued that the SCN-cum-Demand Notice was legally unsustainable due to a prior SCN on the same issue, covering the same period and amount, already pending before the CESTAT. The appellant relied on specific legal decisions to support this argument, questioning the validity of issuing a subsequent notice on the same matter.
  
  Time-barred nature of subsequent SCN:
  The appellant further contended that the subsequent SCN was time-barred since the extended period of limitation was not available to the Department. Legal precedents were cited to support this argument, emphasizing the importance of adhering to statutory time limits in issuing notices.
  
  Applicability of the ratio laid down in a specific case:
  The appellant raised concerns regarding the Assistant Commissioner not offering any findings on the applicability of the ratio laid down in a specific case, indicating a lack of consideration for relevant legal principles in the decision-making process.
  
  Imposition of penalties under Sections 76 and 77:
  Despite acknowledging the absence of mala fide intention, the Assistant Commissioner imposed penalties under Sections 76 and 77. The appellant argued that these penalties could be waived by extending protection under Section 80, questioning the necessity and proportionality of the penalties imposed.
  
  Legality of issuing a subsequent SCN covering the same issue, amount, and period:
  The judgment highlighted that the appellant had already been issued a prior SCN covering the same issue, amount, and period, which was pending before the CESTAT. The decision questioned the legal basis for issuing a subsequent SCN under such circumstances, emphasizing the need for consistency and avoiding duplicative proceedings.
  
  Time-bar aspect of the subsequent SCN:
  The judgment addressed the time-bar aspect of the subsequent SCN, noting that since the matter was sub-judice and the appellant's liability for service tax during the material period had been confirmed by the Commissioner (Appeals), the question of time-bar did not arise. This analysis underscored the importance of ongoing legal proceedings in determining the timeliness of subsequent actions.

  ---

• 2009 (7) TMI 1090
  
  Issues:
  1. Appeal against Order-In-Original for non-payment of Service tax.
  2. Dispute over penalty imposition under Section 76 of the Finance Act, 1994.
  3. Appellant's contentions regarding penalty reduction and discretionary powers.
  4. Adjudication of the case based on ST3 returns and late payment penalty calculation.
  
  Issue 1: Appeal against Order-In-Original for non-payment of Service tax
  
  The appeal was received from M/s. Ajjaree Engineering Industries Pvt. Ltd. against Order-In-Original No. 57/ADJ/STC/KOP-II/2008 for non-payment of Service tax for maintenance or repair services, erection and commissioning, and GTA services. A show cause notice was issued for the unpaid Service tax amount of Rs. 3,22,543/- during the specified period. The appellant contested the order, stating that there was no intention to evade tax as the demand was based on their filed ST3 returns.
  
  Issue 2: Dispute over penalty imposition under Section 76 of the Finance Act, 1994
  
  The appellant challenged the imposition of equal penalty under Section 76 of the Act, arguing that the penalty should not exceed Rs. 66,660/- based on the calculation method provided in the Act. The appellant relied on various decisions to support their contention that the penalty amount should be reduced considering the circumstances of the case. The adjudicating authority imposed the penalty equal to the Service tax amount, leading to the appeal against this penalty imposition.
  
  Issue 3: Appellant's contentions regarding penalty reduction and discretionary powers
  
  The appellant contended that they had already paid interest and penalizing them separately under Section 76 was unnecessary. They also argued that even if liable for penalty, it should not be equal to the Service tax amount. The appellant cited previous cases where authorities had discretion to reduce penalties and questioned the justification for imposing an equal penalty without proper explanation.
  
  Issue 4: Adjudication of the case based on ST3 returns and late payment penalty calculation
  
  During the Personal Hearing, the appellant requested a reduction in the equal penalty imposed under Section 76. The Commissioner reviewed the case records and agreed that there was no mala fide intention on the part of the appellant since the demand was based on their filed returns. The Commissioner analyzed the penalty calculation under Section 76, considering the lack of sufficient reasons for late payment. Ultimately, the Commissioner reduced the penalty from Rs. 3,22,543/- to Rs. 66,600/-, aligning it with the maximum penalty amount justified by the circumstances. The appeal was allowed with the modified penalty amount.
  
  This detailed analysis covers the issues involved in the legal judgment, addressing the appellant's contentions, penalty imposition under Section 76, and the adjudication process based on ST3 returns and penalty calculations.

  ---

• 2009 (7) TMI 1089
  
  Issues Involved:
  1. Classification of the appellant's activity as 'manufacturing' or 'repair and maintenance' service.
  2. Applicability of Service tax on exported re-shelled sugar mill rollers.
  3. Time bar and limitation for issuing the Show Cause Notice (SCN).
  4. Imposition of double penalty under Section 78 and penalty under Section 76 of the Finance Act, 1994.
  
  Issue-wise Analysis:
  
  1. Classification of the appellant's activity:
  The appellant contended that their activity involved mounting shells on bare shafts, which constituted manufacturing a new sugar mill roller. They referenced the Punjab & Haryana High Court's decision in the case of Saraswati Industrial Syndicate, which distinguished between reshelling (repairing) and manufacturing new rollers. The lower authority, however, classified the activity as 'repair and maintenance' service based on the description in purchase orders (POs) and invoices. The appellant argued that the description in POs was incorrect and that their activity should be considered manufacturing, as they received bare shafts and created new rollers.
  
  2. Applicability of Service tax on exported re-shelled sugar mill rollers:
  The appellant claimed that their activity was manufacturing and thus not subject to Service tax under 'repair and maintenance' service. They argued that they exported the new rollers under bond without payment of duty, and the Department had previously allowed this classification for domestic clearances. The lower authority held that the activity was taxable since it was performed in India and paid for in Indian currency. The appellant provided evidence, including Bills of Entry and POs, to support their claim of receiving bare shafts and manufacturing new rollers.
  
  3. Time bar and limitation for issuing the SCN:
  The appellant argued that the SCN issued on 31-7-2007 was time-barred as the Department had acquired knowledge of their activity on 24-11-2004. They cited the Supreme Court's decision in Kushal Fabricators Pvt. Ltd., which held that suppression stops once the Department is informed, and only the normal period for issuing an SCN is applicable. The appellant had responded to the Department's queries in 2004 and 2005, making the SCN issued in 2007 beyond the permissible period.
  
  4. Imposition of double penalty under Section 78 and penalty under Section 76:
  The appellant contended that the lower authority imposed double penalties without providing reasons. They argued there was no suppression of facts as they had imported bare shafts under Bills of Entry, conducted manufacturing, and duly entered the products in the RG1 register. They had also been filing ER 1 returns regularly. The absence of suppression or intent to evade tax made the imposition of penalties unjustified.
  
  Conclusion:
  The appellate authority found that the appellant's activity constituted manufacturing, not 'repair and maintenance' service, based on the evidence provided. The demand for Service tax was thus not sustainable. Additionally, the SCN was deemed time-barred, and the imposition of penalties was found to be without basis. The appeal was allowed, and the impugned order was set aside.

  ---

• 2009 (7) TMI 1088
  

  Goods Transport Agency Service - Notification No. 35/2004-S.T., dated 3-12-2004 - whether the appellant is liable to pay Service tax in terms of Rule 2(i)(v) of the Service Tax Rules 1994 towards services received from M/s. Gati Ltd., M/s. NECC Logistics Ltd., M/s. Speedage Transport Agencies, M/s. Rahul Cargo and M/s. Ghatge Patil Transports?

  ---

• 2009 (7) TMI 1087
  
  Issues involved: Appeal challenging order on taxable services of Manpower Recruitment Agency and Cargo Handling.
  
  Manpower Recruitment Agency Services: The Revenue appealed against the order stating the respondent was not providing taxable services under Manpower Recruitment Agency and Cargo Handling categories. The Adjudicating Authority found the respondent liable for tax under both categories for services provided to a specific recipient. However, the Counsel for the respondent argued that the activity carried out did not fall under Cargo Handling Services as the goods did not leave the factory premises. The Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the respondent's position, considering the timing of the tax liability and the nature of the services provided.
  
  Cargo Handling Services: The Appellate Authority examined the case records and found no evidence of Service tax realization for the cargo handling services provided by the respondent. The laborers were engaged in loading and unloading goods within the factory premises, with no proof of activities beyond the factory. Based on the lack of evidence and the findings of the Commissioner (Appeals), the Revenue's appeal was dismissed.
  
  Conclusion: The Appellate Tribunal upheld the Commissioner (Appeals) decision, ruling in favor of the respondent regarding the taxability of Manpower Recruitment Agency and Cargo Handling services. The lack of evidence of Service tax realization and the nature of activities performed supported the dismissal of the Revenue's appeal.

  ---

• 2009 (7) TMI 1086
  
  Issues Involved:
  1. Classification of services provided by the appellants.
  2. Applicability of Service Tax on the services.
  3. Validity of the Show Cause Notices (SCNs) issued.
  4. Allegation of suppression of facts and invocation of the extended period of limitation.
  
  Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:
  
  1. Classification of Services Provided by the Appellants:
  The primary issue was whether the activities of the appellants, which included bailing, packing, loading, unloading, handling, and transportation of bagasse, fell under 'cargo handling services' or 'manpower recruitment & supply agency service'. The Assistant Commissioner had classified these activities under 'cargo handling services'. However, the appellants contended that bagasse, a residual waste of sugarcane used as fuel, could not be treated as cargo. They argued that their activities should be classified under 'manpower recruitment & supply agency service' as per the Board's clarification in Circular No. B1/6/2005-TRU, dated 27-7-2005. The Commissioner (Appeals) had previously ruled in favor of similar cases, stating that such activities within factory premises could not be considered as 'cargo handling services'.
  
  2. Applicability of Service Tax on the Services:
  The Assistant Commissioner had imposed Service Tax on the appellants under 'cargo handling services'. However, the definition of 'cargo handling service' under Section 65(23) of the Finance Act, 1994, includes loading, unloading, packing, or unpacking of cargo, but excludes handling of export cargo, passenger baggage, or mere transportation of goods. Since bagasse is not considered cargo, the activities of the appellants could not be taxed under 'cargo handling services'. Instead, their services could be considered under 'manpower recruitment & supply agency service' effective from 16-6-2005.
  
  3. Validity of the Show Cause Notices (SCNs) Issued:
  The second appellant pointed out that for the same activities and period, the department had issued another SCN treating the services under 'manpower recruitment & supply agency service'. This inconsistency indicated that the department was unsure of the correct classification. The issuance of two SCNs for the same period under different service categories was deemed impermissible and unjust, further supporting the appellants' stance.
  
  4. Allegation of Suppression of Facts and Invocation of the Extended Period of Limitation:
  The appellants argued that there was no deliberate suppression of facts or intent to evade tax. They claimed a bona fide belief that their activities were not taxable under 'cargo handling services'. The Supreme Court decisions in Padmini Products v. CCE and Cosmic Dye Chemicals v. CCE supported the view that suppression must be deliberate with guilty knowledge. Furthermore, the second appellant highlighted that the department had knowledge of their activities in May 2006, but issued the SCN only in September 2007, making it time-barred. The Assistant Commissioner failed to rebut this claim, and the Apex Court's decision in Kushal Fertilisers (P) Ltd. v. Commissioner reinforced that SCNs must be issued within one year from the date of knowledge of the activities.
  
  Conclusion:
  The Commissioner (Appeals) concluded that the appellants' activities did not fall under 'cargo handling services' and should be classified under 'manpower recruitment & supply agency service'. The impugned orders were set aside on the grounds of incorrect classification, time-barred SCNs, and lack of deliberate suppression. Consequently, the appellants were not liable to pay Service Tax, interest, or penalties under 'cargo handling services'. Both appeals were allowed, and the orders passed by the Assistant Commissioner, Central Excise, Sangli Division, were set aside.

  ---

• 2009 (7) TMI 1085
  
  In the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), Pune-II case, M/s The Rajasthan Bank Ltd. appealed against an order alleging misuse of cenvat credit. The appellant, a service provider, did not maintain separate accounts for taxable and non-taxable services. The lower authority confirmed the allegations, imposing penalties and interest. The appellant appealed, arguing that Rule 6(5) allows 100% credit utilization. At the hearing, the appellant's representatives presented their case. The Commissioner reviewed the case and found that Rule 6(5) indeed allows 100% credit for specified taxable services. As the appellant was compliant, the penalties and interest were deemed unnecessary, and the appeal was allowed. The judgment clarified the distinction between Rule 6(3) and Rule 6(5), emphasizing the appellant's eligibility for full credit. This ruling highlights the importance of correctly interpreting tax rules to avoid unnecessary penalties.

  ---

• 2009 (7) TMI 1084
  

  Waiver of pre-deposit - abatement under N/N. 32/04 - denial of abatement on the ground that there is no endorsement on the consignment notes that there is non-availment of inputs/capital goods stage credit - Held that: - the applicant as a person who has received the services of the goods transport agency could not have taken the credit of the capital goods/inputs - the applicant has made but a prima facie case for the waiver of the pre-deposit of the amounts confirmed by the lower authorities - Application for waiver of the amounts involved is allowed and recovery thereof stayed till the disposal of the appeal.

  ---

• 2009 (7) TMI 1083
  
  The Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Ahmedabad allowed the stay petition unconditionally as the construction of compound wall and roads in a plot for a residential complex with less than 12 units is not liable for service tax under Construction Services - Residential Complex category. Service Tax of Rs. 6,03,187/- was confirmed against the appellant initially.

  ---

• 2009 (7) TMI 1082
  
  Issues involved: Condonation of delay in appeal filing, applicability of service tax on construction services for BSNL, plea raised for exemption based on CBEC letter.
  
  Condonation of delay: The Tribunal allowed the condonation of delay of 26 days in filing the appeal due to the appellant's illness, as the case papers were returned late after the appellant fell seriously ill. The delay was considered justified, and the application for stay was taken up subsequently.
  
  Applicability of service tax: The demand was confirmed on the basis that the applicants were providing commercial and industrial construction services by constructing foundation bases for BSNL's towers and buildings. The applicants argued that since BSNL is a government undertaking not engaged in commercial activities, they should be exempt from service tax as per a CBEC letter. However, as this argument was not raised before the lower authority and was presented for the first time in the appeal, no prima facie case for unconditional waiver was established. The Tribunal directed the assessees to deposit a specified amount towards the tax within four weeks, with the balance tax, interest, and penalties being waived and recovery stayed pending the appeal. Non-compliance would lead to vacation of stay and dismissal of the appeal.
  
  Conclusion: The Tribunal allowed the condonation of delay in filing the appeal, but required the assessees to deposit a sum towards the tax amount within a specified period. The plea for exemption based on BSNL's status as a government organization was not considered sufficient for unconditional waiver of tax liabilities.

  ---

• 2009 (7) TMI 1081
  
  Issues:
  1. Whether the training provided by the appellant institute is for vocational purposes.
  2. Whether the degree awarded to candidates renders them self-employed.
  3. Whether the activity carried out by the institute qualifies as a commercial service.
  4. Whether the appellant is liable to pay service tax.
  
  Analysis:
  1. The appellant institute was providing training to candidates for degree examinations, with the Revenue contending that the education provided constituted vocational training. The Revenue argued that the first appellate order allowing the benefit of a specific notification was contrary to law. The Revenue highlighted the substantial fees charged from candidates, asserting that the activity was commercial in nature. The Revenue appealed against the first appellate order.
  
  2. The appellant's counsel argued that the training resulted in candidates becoming self-employed, emphasizing that awarding a degree was irrelevant if the training was for vocational purposes. The counsel referenced specific paragraphs in the appellate order to support the argument that the appellant was not liable for service tax. The Commissioner (Appeals) had correctly concluded that the appellant was not subject to service tax based on the nature of the training provided.
  
  3. After hearing both sides and examining the record, the Tribunal found it necessary to determine whether degrees were awarded to candidates and whether the training provided was indeed vocational. Given the legal dispute, the Tribunal ordered a status quo ante until the appeal's final disposal, thereby addressing the stay application filed by the Revenue.
  
  In conclusion, the judgment focused on the nature of the training provided by the appellant institute, the relevance of awarding degrees, and whether the activities conducted could be classified as commercial services. The Tribunal's decision to maintain the status quo ante reflected the need for further examination of evidence to determine the institute's liability for service tax.

  ---

• 2009 (7) TMI 1080
  
  Issues:
  1. Entitlement to Notification No. 12/2003 for service tax.
  2. Wilful suppression of facts affecting abatement eligibility.
  
  Entitlement to Notification No. 12/2003 for service tax:
  The appellant argued that the demand made by the adjudicating authority was based on a cursory examination of the contract/agreement. They claimed that since the materials involved in the work made the work performable, they should be entitled to Notification No. 12/2003, dated 20-6-2003, and should not be denied legitimate dues. The appellant had already paid a significant amount towards the service tax demand, including the cess attributable to service tax. The appellant requested a stay on the realization of the balance demand during the appeal process. The Tribunal observed that a thorough examination of the record was necessary before denying the benefit of the notification. They noted that the reasons for rejecting the appellant's pleadings without a categorical examination of the work orders were not apparent in the impugned order. Considering that the appellant had already made a substantial deposit, the Tribunal directed the appellant to make a further pre-deposit of Rs. 20 lakhs within six weeks and stay the realization of the balance demand during the appeal.
  
  Wilful suppression of facts affecting abatement eligibility:
  The Joint CDR contended that the Commissioner (Appeals) had found wilful suppression of facts by the appellant, making them ineligible for the abatement of 67% under the relevant Notification. Therefore, the Joint CDR argued that a pre-deposit of the demand should be made at this stage. After hearing both sides and examining the record, the Tribunal noted the argument made by the appellant's counsel regarding the examination of the record before denying the benefit of the Notification. The Tribunal found that the impugned order lacked a categorical examination of the work orders, and the reasons for rejecting the appellant's pleadings were not evident. Consequently, the Tribunal directed the appellant to make a further pre-deposit but did not find it necessary to require the entire demand to be deposited during the pendency of the appeal.
  
  This judgment highlights the importance of a detailed examination of the record before denying benefits or imposing demands in tax matters. It also showcases the Tribunal's discretion in determining pre-deposit amounts and stays on demand realization during the appeal process based on the facts and circumstances of each case.

  ---

1 ....121314151617181920........ 50