A. Classification of Service
Banking and Other Financial Services
1. The Tribunal held that there was no distinction between borrowing and lending in case of services pertaining to loans and therefore services availed by the assessee from mandated lead agents in borrowing money from banks located abroad would be covered under the category of Banking & Other Financial services.
Tata Steel Ltd. v. CST – (2016) 41 STR 689 (Tri.-Mum.)
2. The Tribunal held that service tax is not payable on services provided by Association to its members and therefore held that the assessee, taking interest paying deposits from its members and lending to needy members on interest was not liable to service tax.
Chiplun Nagari Sahakari Patsanstha Ltd. v. CCE – (2015) 40 STR 957 (Tri.-Mum.)
Business Auxiliary / Support Services
3. The Court held that the activity of conducting or managing business for an owner could not be classified under the category of Business Support Services. It held that the assessee was responsible for any profits generated or losses sustained and therefore the transaction would not fall within the meaning of support services.
CCE&ST v. Karan Agencies – (2015) 64 taxmann.com 374 (Bom.)
4. The Tribunal held that fees collected by the assessee from members for the purpose of organisation of an exhibition was not liable to service tax. However, it held that sums collected from non-members was subject to service tax.
Maharashtra Chamber of Housing Industry vs. CCEC&ST – 2016 41 STR 441 (Tri.-Mum.)
5. The Tribunal held that reimbursement of sale promotion expenses received by an authorized service station from a vehicle manufacturer would be treated as consideration for providing sales promotion services, liable to service tax under the category of Business Auxiliary Services.
CCE v. Premier Motor Garage – (2015) 39 STR 490 (Tri. – Del.)
6. The Tribunal held that, as per the agreement, the assessee was responsible for proper management, supervision and co-ordination of various aspects in relation to transportation of vehicles from factory to manufacturers depot and dealers and therefore the service rendered clearly fell under the scope of managing, distribution and logistics liable to service tax under Business support services w.e.f. 1-5-2006 and not under Business Auxiliary Services for the period prior to that.
Capital Transport Convoy Contractor vs. CCE&ST – (2016) 41 STR 651 (Tri.-Del.)
7. The Tribunal held that distributors of Amway India Enterprises, receiving commission on volume of purchases was liable to service tax under Business Auxiliary Services.
Charanjit Singh Khanuja v. CST – (2016) 41 STR 213 (Tri.-Del.)
8. The Tribunal held that preparation / reissue of documents such as bill of entry was liable to service tax under the category of Business Auxiliary Services in light of
the explanation inserted defining commission Agent.
CMA CGM Global (India) Pvt Ltd. v. CCE – (2016) 41 STR 292 (Tri. – Mum.)
9. The Tribunal held that processing of vegetables by the assessee on behalf of its clients was in relation to agriculture and therefore not liable to service tax in light of circular No. 143 / 12 / 2011-ST.
Tasty Bite Eatables Ltd v. CCE – (2016) 41 STR 117 (Tri. – Mum.)
10. The Tribunal, relying on a series of decisions held that, providing/selling SIM cards / recharge vouchers in lieu of certain commission was not liable to service tax under Business Auxiliary Services.
Omar Agencies (Hutch) v. CCE, Allahabad 2015 (40) STR 1135 (Tri.-Del.)
Commercial Training or Coaching Services
11. The Court held that where the assessee incurred expenses towards training of staff outside India no coaching service was performed / rendered in India and therefore the same
was not liable to service tax on reverse charge basis
CCE, ST & C v. Maersk India (P)Ltd – (2015) 40 STR 1059 (Tri.-Mum.)
Club or Association Service
12. The Tribunal held that as per the principle of mutuality, entrance fee for admission of new members, collected by the assessee was not liable to service tax since it was a onetime payment for inclusion into restricted group constituting membership of club or association.
Further it held that monthly contributions by members that could not be attributable to identifiable activities could not be deemed to be consideration liable to be taxed and that contributions for discharge of liabilities or meeting common expenses of a group of persons would not be taxable under the Act in absence of identifiable service benefitting identified individual or individuals making such contribution.
Cricket Club of India Ltd. v. CST – (2015) 40 STR 973 (Tri.-Mum.)
13. The Advance Authority held that the term “activity” is very wide connotation and that it may be active or passive and includes provision of facility by club. It further held that the asssessee was involved in business of establishing and running indoor sports complex & club and since its shareholders may not be members of club and vice versa, the principle of mutuality was not applicable and therefore membership fees, annual fees and other charges received from members from time to time were liable for service tax.
Emerald Leisures Ltd. – (2016) 41 STR 321 (AAR)
Erection, Commissioning & Installation Service
14. The Tribunal held that the fabrication of structures at client’s premises would not be liable to service tax under the category of Erection, Commissioning and Installation as it led to the emergence of excisable goods which amounts to manufacture.
Plus Tech Engineering Pvt. Ltd. v. CCE – (2015) 39 STR 454 (Tri.-Ahd.)
15. The Tribunal held that as per the agreement between the assessee, a municipal corporation and private operators granting the private operators the right to use of a logo on its buses, no representational right was granted to the private operator to provide any service identified with the assessee and therefore there being no relationship of franchisor and franchisee between the two, no service tax was payable.
CCE v. Aurangabad Municipal Corporation – (2016) 41 STR 443 (Tri.-Mum.)
Interior Decorator Service
16. The Tribunal held that the activities carried out by the assessee viz. manufacturing of furniture as per design, drawing and specifications provided by the customer as well modular partition and certain activities executed under supervision through sub-contractor were not liable to service tax under category of Interior Decorator Service.
Divekar Associates v. CCE, Pune III 2015 (40) STR 1101 (Tri.-Mum.)
Management, Maintenance and repair services
17. The Tribunal held that software maintenance services were liable for service tax under the category of Maintenance and Repair services, considering the decision of the Apex Court in Tata Consultancy Services wherein software was held to be goods.
Choudhary International Pvt Ltd v. CST (2015) 39 STR 170 (Tri.-Mum.)
18. The Tribunal held that the assessee, engaged in the activity of designing, manufacturing, installing, commissioning, and maintaining energy saving devices on build, own, operation and transfer (BOOT) basis, retained ownership of the equipment after undertaking aforesaid activity for the municipal corporation and sharing the profits, rendered services to himself only and not to municipal corporation and therefore profit earned over and above cost of equipment could not be considered as charges for rendering service.
CCE v. Sahastronics Controls (P) Ltd. – (2016) 41 STR 454 (Tri.-Mum.)
19. The Court held that services rendered in relation to widening of roads and maintenance thereon during the period June 2005 to July 2009 would be exempt from service tax in light of the retrospective exemption granted under section 97 of the Act.
Khattar & Company Pvt. Ltd. v. CST – (2015) 39 STR 391 (All.)
Manpower recruiting services
20. The Tribunal held that the gross amount charged for service was inclusive of amount of payment made to labourers and therefore service tax was leviable on such gross amount and not merely on amount of commission
Neelkant Associates v. CCE – (2016) 41 STR 569 (Tri.-Del.)
21. The Tribunal held that the lumpsum work carried out by the employees deputed by the assessee to the factories of manufacturers for doing specific job as per purchase orders was not liable to service tax and therefore dismissed the contention of the Revenue in trying to tax the consideration received under the category of Manpower Recruitment & Supply Agency
Shivshakti Enterprises v. CCE – (2016) 41 STR 648 (Tri.-Mum.)
22. The Tribunal held that based on the work order, the assessee was only required to supply manpower and therefore the department was incorrect in seeking to tax welding and gas cutting service provided on firm rate basis for NTPC under Manpower Recruitment & Supply Agency Service.
D. S. Chavan Engineering Works v. CCE&C, Nashik 2015 (40) STR 1150 (Tri.-Mum.)
23. The Tribunal held that since hiring and renting could be distinguished from each other, service tax could not be levied on hiring of cabs under the category of Rent-a-Cab services.
CCE v. P.B. Bobde – (2015) 64 taxmann.com 126 (Tri.-Mum.)
Renting of Immovable Property
24. The Tribunal held that long term leases would also fall within the ambit of renting of immovable property services and that renting / leasing of vacant land for business or commercial purpose would fall within the ambit of service tax only with effect from July 2010.
New Okhla Industrial Development Authority v. CCE – (2015) 39 STR 443 – (Tri.-Del.)
25. The Tribunal held that providing of vacant land on lease / license for construction of building / temporary structures to be used for business or commerce purposes would be liable to service tax with effect from July 1, 2010 onwards and that service tax would be payable even in cases where the agreement for such lease / license is entered into prior to July 1, 2010 since the provision of services was the taxing event. It further held that there was no distinction between long term and short term leases for service tax purposes.
Premium paid by lessee to the lessor was not liable to service tax since the levy of service tax was on the renting of immovable property and not transfer of interest in property. Additionally, the Tribunal held that processing charges collected for allotment of land would be liable to service tax under the category of renting of immovable property and that charges for map approval, validation, map revision, not having any nexus with the renting of immovable property would not be liable for service tax.
Rent received for letting out residential units / leasing out land for construction of residential complexes would not be liable to service tax, not being for furtherance of business or commerce.
Greater Noida Indl. Development Authority v CCE&ST – (2015) 38 STR 1062 (Tri.-Del.)
Supply of Tangible Goods Service
26. The Tribunal held that the assessee, a radio taxi scheme operator was not covered under the supply of tangible goods service since the privity of contract for supply of taxi for undertaking journey was between the assessee and the passengers and not between the assessee and the drivers and therefore the agreement between the assessee and drivers does not indicate that the drivers had possession of vehicles for their use.
Meru Cab Co. Pvt. Ltd. v. CCE – (2016) 41 STR 444 (Tri.-Mum.)
Tour Operator Service
27. The Tribunal held that since the appellant was not engaged in planning, scheduling or organising tours for passengers, it was not liable to pay service tax under the category of Tour Operator Service.
Jet Airways (India) Ltd. v. CST – (2016) 41 STR 225 (Tri.-Mum.)
Transport of Goods/Passengers by Air Service
28. The Tribunal held that carrying baggage, including excess baggage by Airlines is integral part of transport of passengers by qir and an incidental activity of main service and that neither was there an element of transport of unaccompanied goods under this service nor was there a separate contract for such service. Since service tax on passenger transport under main service, was fixed per passenger during relevant period, no further tax could be demanded on excess baggage charges recovered from passengers.
Kingfisher Airlines Ltd. v. CST- (2015) 40 STR 1159 (Tri.-Mum.)
Works contract Services
29. The Tribunal held that the taxable event is rendition of service and since the assessee in this case rendered works contract services prior to 1-3-2008, when lower rate of tax was applicable but payment was received after
1-3-2008, when rate of tax increased, the lower rate of tax was applicable.
CST v. Bagai Construction 2016 (41) STR 433 (Tri.-Del.)
30. The Tribunal held that where the assessee cancelled an old contract and executed fresh contract and obtained registration under Works Contract Service on 29-6-2007 and paid service tax under composition scheme on 5/6th July, 2007, in the absence of any evidence to support the allegation of the department that the new contracts replacing old contracts were merely an eyewash to avail benefit of aforesaid rule, there was no violation of composition scheme.
Further, it held that the adjudication order was to be set aside since the adjudicating authority confirmed demand on completely fresh grounds not mentioned in SCN.
CCE v. Ashoka Buildcon Ltd. 2016 (41) STR 452 (Tri.-Mum.)
31. The Tribunal held that trading profit on sale and purchase could not be subjected to service tax.
Rama Marketing v. CCE – (2015) 39 STR 475 (Tri. – Mum.)
32. The Tribunal, following the decision of the Larger Bench in Bhayana Builders Pvt. Ltd. v. CST (2013) 32 STR 49, held that value of free supples of materials received from the service recipient for incorporation into the works contract could not be included in the value of taxable services.
Millennium Constructions Pvt. Ltd. v. CST – (2015) 39 STR 477 (Tri.-Del.)
33. The Tribunal held that gross amount charged by the service provider for provision of construction services would not include consideration for sale of immovable property.
SPL Developers Pvt. Ltd. v. CST – (2015) 39 STR 455 (Tri.-Bang.)
34. The Tribunal, following the decision of Reliance Industries Ltd. v. CCE (2008) 12 STR 345, held that reimbursement of actual travel expenses received by the assessee from the service recipients would not form part of the taxable value.
Kirloskar Pneumatic Co. Ltd. v. CCE – (2015) 38 STR 1198 (Tri.-Mum.)
C. CENVAT Credit
35. The Tribunal held that availment of CENVAT Credit by the company’s head office at Bengaluru in respect of credit of its branches was allowed even without centralised registration since service tax was paid as per centralised registration and therefore there was substantive adherence of law.
Further it held that credit of service tax paid on renting of premises used for providing services was admissible since services could not be rendered without the premises.
Nuance Transcription Services India Pvt. Ltd. v. CST – (2015) 39 STR 241 (Tri.-Bang.)
36. The Tribunal held that CENVAT credit on outdoor catering services received before April 1, 2011 was admissible even if payment was made after April 2011 though such services were excluded from the definition of input services with effect April 1, 2011.
Hindustan Coca Cola Beverages Pvt Ltd v. CCE & ST – (2015) 38 STR 855 (Tri.- Del)
37. The Tribunal held that CENVAT credit on business auxiliary services received by a manufacturer of excisable goods prior to September 10, 2004 was not admissible in terms of Rule 3(1) of the CENVAT Credit Rules even though he invoices were raised and payments were released post the said date.
Elecon Engineering Co. Ltd. v. CCE – (2015) 38 STR 874 (Tri.-Ahd.)
38. The Tribunal held that the CENVAT credit availed on steel, racks, bolts etc. procured by the assessee for construction of mobile towers used for providing Passive Telecom Infrastructure to other companies was admissible as the said items would qualify as inputs under the CENVAT Credit Rules.
Reliance Infratel v. CCE – (2015) 38 STR 984 (Tri. – Mum.)
39. The Tribunal held that CENVAT Credit of service tax paid rent, stock insurance and commission paid for sale of goods post clearance from the factory was admissible.
Dhampur Sugar Mills Ltd. v. CCE – (2015) 38 STR 1004 (Tri.-Del.)
40. The Tribunal held that since the CENVAT Credit Rules do not provide for utilisation of CENVAT Credit for payment of amount specified under section 73A, the said payment had to be made in cash.
Jaipur Cricket Pvt Ltd. v. CST – (2015) 38 STR 1193 (Tri.-Mum.)
41. The Tribunal held that CENVAT credit on housekeeping and gardening services availed by the assessee to maintain factory premises in an eco-friendly manner was admissible.
CCE&ST v. Rane TRW Steering Systems Ltd. – (2015) 39 STR 13 (Mad.)
42. The Tribunal held that CENVAT Credit on Manpower Recruitment services could not be denied merely because the name of the service was not mentioned on the invoice
Bajaj Motors Ltd v. CCE – (2015) 39 STR 85 (Tri. – Del.)
43. The Tribunal held that CENVAT credit on maintenance of photocopying machines used in the office was admissible being activity related to business.
Nirma Ltd. v. CCE – (2015) 39 STR 145 (Tri.-Ahd)
44. The Tribunal held that CENVAT Credit on renting of furniture for use by new recruits, housekeeping services for up-keep of premises, annual maintenance contract for maintenance of UPSs and computer networks and food coupons for provision of food to office staff during office hours was admissible.
C-Cubed Solutions Pvt. Ltd. v. CCE, C&ST – (2015) 38 STR 853 – (Tri.-Bang.)
45. The Tribunal held that where the assessee paid service tax on the full value of transportation charges as opposed to 25 per cent thereon, CENVAT Credit on full value would allowed as per Rule 3 of CENVAT Credit Rules.
H One India Pvt. Ltd. v. CCE, C&ST – (2015) 39 STR 87 (Tri.-Del.)
46. The Tribunal held that where the assessee paid tax on exempted services, it could not be concluded that the assessee provided any exempted services and therefore the restriction on availment of credit under section 6(2) was not applicable and that the assessee could be forced to avail the benefit of exemption notification.
Deloitte Haskins & Sells v. CCE – (2015) 38 STR 1220 – (Tri.-Mum.)
47. The Tribunal held that credit of service tax paid on pandal or shamiana services for safeguarding machines lying in the open ground during installation of such machinery was admissible for CENVAT Credit.
Dalmia Chini Mills v. CCE – (2015) 39 STR 310 (Tri.-Del.)
48. The Tribunal held that credit of service tax paid on car insurance services on cars used for official purposes of the Company and by the Directors of the company was admissible for CENVAT Credit.
Technical Associates Ltd. v. CCE – (2015) 39 STR 312 (Tri.-Del.)
49. The Tribunal held that services availed at residential colonies of employees and for club and welfare activities of staff could not be considered as input services since it did not have any nexus with the manufacturing business of the assessee and therefore CENVAT Credit was inadmissible.
Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd. v. CCE – (2015) 39 STR 316 (Tri.-Mum.)
50. The Tribunal held that service tax paid on input services such as banking, other financial services, clearing and forwarding services, courier services, labour contract services, transportation, telephone, repair and maintenance, insurance and professional consultancy was admissible for CENVAT Credit.
CCE v. JK Fabrics (Bengaluru) Pvt. Ltd. – (2015) 39 STR 315 (Tri.-Beng.)
51. The Tribunal held that credit on service tax paid on courier services availed for dispatch of cheques to vendors/suppliers, air ticketing services availed for travelling abroad for the procurement of inputs/sale of final products, services provided by a foreign language instructor for the translation of technical know-how and documents given in foreign language and outward transportation services availed for delivering good up to the premises of the buyer would be eligible for CENVAT Credit.
CCE v. Mindarika Pvt. Ltd. – (2015) 39 STR 309 – (Tri.-Del.)
52. The Tribunal held that where the assessee maintained separate accounts for inputs in respect of excisable and exempted final products but reversed proportionate CENVAT Credit taken on common input services, the Tribunal held that the reversal of credit of value of exempted final products was not warranted.
VST Tillers and Tractors Ltd. v. CCE – (2015) 39 STR 321 (Tri.-Bang.)
53. The Tribunal held that as per Rule 4(2)(b) of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004, 50 per cent of the CENVAT credit could be availed in the subsequent years provided that capital goods other than components, spares, refractories etc were in the possession of the manufacturer of the final product and therefore for ‘blushings’ being components, the condition of possession of the same in subsequent years for claiming balance CENVAT Credit was not applicable.
Owens Corning (India) Pvt. Ltd. v. CCE – (2015) 64 taxmann.com 171 (Tri.-Mum.)
54. The Tribunal held that CENVAT Credit could not be denied to the service recipient on the ground that the service provider has not paid service tax.
Memories Photography Studio v. CCE&ST – (2015) 39 STR 331 (Tri.-Ahd.)
55. The Tribunal held that credit of service tax paid on construction services availed for setting up of factory building and on rent-a-cab services availed for transporting employees from residence to factory and for official purposes was admissible for CENVAT Credit.
CCE v. Rane NKS Steering System Ltd. – (2015) 39 STR 339 (Tri.-Del.)
56. The Tribunal held that CENVAT Credit on outdoor catering services, the cost of which was borne by the assessee employer was to be allowed for the period prior to March 31, 2011. It further held that the amendment excluding the said services from the definition of input services was not retrospective in nature since the amendment clearly specified that the date of its enforcement was April 1, 2011.
CCE v. Visteon Powertrain Control Systems Pvt. Ltd. – (2016) 41 STR 168 (Mad.)
57. The Tribunal held that where the debit notes raised by input service providers mentioned all the information to be mentioned on an invoice as prescribed under Section 4A of the Service Tax Rules, 1994, CENVAT Credit was admissible.
Jaguar & Co. Ltd. v. CST – (2015) 39 STR 273 (Tri. – Del.)
58. The Tribunal held that credit of service tax paid on outdoor catering services availed by the manufacture for its employees would be admissible to the extent of cost borne by him. Further, it held that credit of service tax on guest house maintenance service would not be admissible since it did not have nexus with manufacturing activities.
CCE v. Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd. – (2015) 39 STR 298 (Tri.-Mum.)
59. The Tribunal held that where outdoor catering services and life insurance services were received for personal use of employees post April 1, 2011, no credit on service tax was allowable.
Applied Micro Circuits India Pvt Ltd. v. CCE – 2016-TIOL-403-CESTAT-Mum
60. The Tribunal held that post April 1, 2011, CENVAT Credit of rent a cab services was not allowed due to specific exclusion from the definition of input services even though it is essential for providing output services.
CST v. MMS Maritime India Pvt. Ltd. – (2016) 65 taxmann.com 196 (Tri.-Mum.)
61. The Tribunal held that mobile and courier services are entitled to CENVAT Credit since they were used in relation to manufacture of final products.
CCE &ST v. Miranda Tools – (2016) 65 taxmann.com 88 (Tri.-Ahd.)
62. The Tribunal held that where the assessee imported and utilised inputs in the manufacture of final product and there was no dispute of use of such material, CENVAT Credit could not be denied merely on the ground that a photocopy of the bill of entry was produced as opposed to the original bill of entry.
Arbes Tools Pvt. Ltd. v. CCE – 2016-TIOL-399 CESTAT-Mum.
63. The Tribunal held that goods manufactured on job work basis could not be considered as exempted goods as they were exempt from duty under Notification No .214 / 86 on the basis that excise duty was charged on the full value of final product including the value of job work goods.
Precision Metals v. CCE – 2016-TIOL-400-CESTAT-Mum.
64. The Tribunal held that commission paid to distributors for selling goods did not amount to sales promotion since no consideration was specifically paid towards sale promotion and therefore it amounted to a sale goods and accordingly CENVAT Credit was inadmissible.
Gujarat State Fertilizers & Chemicals Ltd. v. CCE&ST – (2016) 41 STR 191 (Tri. – Ahd.)
65. The Tribunal held that CENVAT credit could not be denied on the ground that the invoices raised by the service provider did not give full details of description of services especially when the payment of service tax by the service provider and the availment of service by the recipient was not disputed.
UG Sugar & Industries Ltd. v. CCE – (2015) 38 STR 852 – (Tri.-Del.)
66. The High Court held that since there was no dispute about the consumption of Rent-a-Cab Service, Tour Operators Service and Travel Agents Service at various stages of manufacturing/business activities, the impugned services were input services and credit thereon was admissible.
Principal Commissioner v. Essar Oil Ltd. – (2016) 41 STR 389 (Guj.)
67. The Tribunal held that since Banking & Other Financial Service was not fully exempted, the same does not fall under the category of exempted service as defined under rule 2(e) of CCR, 2004.
Ambejogai Peoples Co-op. Bank Ltd. v. CCE – (2016) 41 STR 450 (Tri.-Mum)
68. The Tribunal allowed CENVAT credit of service tax paid on ECB under Reverse Charge Method for enhancing existing facility and creating new production facility in India and abroad as there was clear nexus with business activities and therefore amounted to Input Service.
Micro Inks (P) Ltd. v. CCEC&ST – (2016) 41 STR 501 (Tri.-Ahd.)
69. The Tribunal allowed CENVAT credit of service tax paid on construction service availed in respect of construction of dormitory within the factory premises for technician/engineers since it was integrally connected with manufacturing activity and the factory was located at a remote area.
Bajaj Hindustan Ltd. v. CCE – (2016) 41 STR 503 (Tri.-Del.)
70. The Tribunal held that prior to June 16, 2005, in the absence of any rule prescribing documentation for availing credit, credit of service tax paid under reverse charge in respect of Goods Transport Agencies could be availed on the basis of TR-challan.
CCE v. Essel Propack Ltd. – (2015) 39 STR 363 (Tri.-Mum.)
71. The Tribunal held that where the assessee availed CENVAT Credit on sales commission paid by it which was attributable to the trading of goods carried on by it, the same was admissible.
FL Smidth Pvt. Ltd. v. CCE – (2015) 39 STR 373 (Mad.)
72. The Tribunal held that unlike inputs wherein CENVAT credit is allowable only when it is received within the factory premises, there is no restriction on claiming CENVAT credit on input services and therefore allowed CENVAT Credit availed by the assessee with respect to service tax paid on input services utilised by other units, for the purpose of discharging
duty liability on clearances made by the main unit.
Expert Industries Pvt. Ltd. v. CCE – (2015) 39 STR 465 (Tri.-Bang.)
73. The Tribunal held that credit of service tax paid on repair and maintenance services availed by a manufacturer for providing free services during warranty period is admissible since provision of free servicing during warranty period is a condition of sale and hence would be covered by the definition of input service as defined in Rule 2(1) Of the CENVAT credit Rules, 2004 being an activity relating to the business.
Leroy Somer India Pvt. Ltd. v. CCE – (2015) 39 STR 466 (Tri.-Del.)
74. The Tribunal held that Department was incorrect in denying CENVAT Credit availed pertaining to service tax paid on Goods Transportation Agency service, paid by the transporter on the ground that service tax on the said services was not paid by the service recipient.
Rucha Engineering Pvt. Ltd. v. CCE – (2015) 39 STR 518 (Tri.-Mum.)
75. The Tribunal held that denial of CENVAT credit on input services received prior to obtaining of service tax registration on the ground that obtaining of registration is mandatory for availing CENVAT credit is incorrect especially considering the fact that there is no provision to this effect in the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004. Further it held that credit of service tax paid on rent for cafeteria, maintenance of air-conditioners and gym-instructor services would be admissible being services in the nature of activity relating to business.
CST v. Verizon Data Services India P. Ltd. – (2015) 39 STR 522 (Tri.-Chen.)
76. The Tribunal held that CENVAT credit of service tax paid on outdoor catering services used in the canteen of the assessee was allowable even though the number of workers were less than 250.
CST v. Reliance Capital Asset Management Ltd. – (2016) 41 STR 508 (Tri.-Mum.)
77. The Tribunal allowed CENVAT credit of service tax paid on maintenance of vehicles used by staff, group health insurance provided to staff and workers and garden maintained under statutory obligation.
Hindustan National Glass & Industries Ltd. v. CCE – (2016) 41 STR 527 (Tri.-Mum.)
78. The Court held that there is no law that provides that credit on outdoor catering service is available only if number of employees in factory exceeds 250.
CCEC&ST v. Sansera Engineering (P) Ltd. – (2016) 41 STR 611 (Kar.)
79. The Tribunal held that obtaining an ISD registration is only procedural condition which could not lead to denial of substantive benefit and accordingly held that CENVAT Credit could be availed by the assessee without such registration. Further it held that as per rule 12 of CCR, 2004, an assessee can transfer credit lying in one unit to other unit.
Trident Powercrafts (P) Ltd. v. CCE&ST – (2016) 41 STR 687 (Tri.-Beng.)
80. The Tribunal disallowed CENVAT credit of service tax paid on construction of school and SC/ST colony as the same had no nexus with manufacturing activity. It further held that, extended period of limitation could not be invoked as there was no evidence to show suppression or misstatement with malafide intent as the credit availed has been reflected in statutory records and monthly returns filed.
Mangalore Refinery & Petrochemicals Ltd. v. CCE & ST – (2015) 40 STR 1093 (Tri.-Beng)
81. The Tribunal allowed CENVAT credit of service tax paid on maintenance of windmill and plantation since the assessee, being a cement plant, was required to plant trees by dictate of the Pollution Control Board to prevent pollution.
CCE&ST, Tiruchirapalli v. Grasim Industries Ltd. 2016 (41) STR 73 (Tri.-Chen.)
82. The Tribunal held that where there was no lapse in payment of tax and filing service tax returns the department was incorrect in denying input service credit on the ground that invoices containing address of unregistered premises since the other premises/units also belonged to assessee from where output services were provided and the assessee maintained records of credit taken utilised for providing output service and disclosed it in its returns.
Allspheres Entertainment Pvt. Ltd. v. CCE – (2016) 41 STR 104 (Tri.-Del.)
83. The Tribunal allowed CENVAT credit of service tax paid on general insurance and medical insurance policies taken for employees and outdoor catering service. Further it held that merely because certain bills were in individual names, the same could not be a ground for denial of benefit as expenses were reflected in books of account of appellant.
CST v. FIL Capital Advisors (India) Pvt. Ltd. – (2015) 40 STR 1073 (Tri.-Mum.)
Appeal / Assessments
84. The Tribunal held that the powers of the Commissioner (Appeals) are co-extensive with the powers of the adjudicating authority in view of the fact that the Commissioner (Appeals) has the power of enhancement of demand and penalties and hence has to consider new grounds / facts and evidences before passing his order.
Ashirwad Sales Corporation v. CCE – (2015) 38 STR 1155 (Tri.-Mum.)
85. The Tribunal held that where the activities carried out by the assessee viz., affixing aluminium composite panels and cladding and coil cutting services were classifiable under more than one taxable service and the Revenue assumes that the service falls under one category and the assessee asserts that the services fall under another category, it was obligatory for the adjudicating authority to deal with the dispute and record a finding as to why a service falls within a specified taxable service.
Glaztech Alupenal Pvt. Ltd. v. CCE&ST – (2015) 39 STR 507 (Tri.-Del.)
86. The Court held that the requirement of pre-deposit of 7.5% in order to file appeal before Commissioner (Appeals) or 10% in order to file appeal before the Tribunal could not be held as arbitrary or violative of Article 14 and therefore was valid.
Ganesh Yadav v. UOI – (2015) 39 STR 177 (All.)
87. The Court, in the interest of justice, held that the delay in filing of appeal owing to the medical ailments of the assessee’s consultant for which medical records were produced, was condonable by the Tribunal.
Maharaja Tourism Dev P. Ltd. v. Secy Ministry of Finance – (2015) 39 STR 384 (Mad.)
88. The Court held that a delay of 26 days in filing appeal before the CCE(A) owing to the sickness of the assessee as a result of which he could not instruct the counsel to file the appeal, was condonable since it was a bona fide reason.
Chandra Associates v. CCE&C(A) – (2015) 39 STR 353 (All.)
89. The Court held that where both parties, the assessee and the Department have preferred appeals before the Tribunal, the Tribunal was to pass a reasoned and speaking order and discuss the reasons for acceptance and rejection of appeals.
Raipur v. General Manager, Telecom District BSNL – (2016) 41 STR 183 (Chhattisgarh).
90. The Court held that as per section 35C(2) of the Act, the Tribunal can only review its final order and does not have the power to review its interlocutory order, including an order of pre-deposit.
Avtar & Company v. CCE – (2015) 39 STR 245 (Tri.-Del.)
91. The Tribunal held that under section 85(4) of the Act, the CCE(A) has the power to remand.
CCE v. Goel International Pvt. Ltd. – (2015) 39 STR 330 (Tri.-Del.)
92. The Tribunal held that where an application for rectification of original order is filed, the time for filing appeal is to be reckoned from the date of rejection of rectification application.
United Corporation v. CCE – (2016) 41 STR 494 (Tri.-Del.)
93. The Tribunal held that best judgment ought to be used only for ascertaining quantum of tax liability, in cases where the actual extent of liability could not be determined with mathematical precision and not for determination of specific taxable service provided.
Shubham Electricals v. CCE&ST – (2015) 40 STR 1034 (Tri.-Del.)
Demand / Extended Period
94. The Court held that demand alleged to be due as per show-cause notice without its proper adjudication could not be recovered by issuing notices to banks and debtors.
Quality Fabricators and Erectors v. Dy Director DGCEI – (2016) 41 STR 11 (Bom.)
95. The Court case held that the department could not resort to invoke section 87 for recovery of demand, until and unless there was determination and adjudication either under Sec. 72 or 73 of FA, 1994.
Prashant v. UOI – (2016) 41 STR 392 (Kar.)
96. The Tribunal held that the explanation (c) to Section 67(4) providing for the liability to pay service tax on the credit / debit in the books of account by a service provider in case of transactions with associated enterprises would have prospective applicability from May 10, 2008.
Sify Technologies Ltd. v. CCE – (2015) 39 STR 261 (Tri.-Chennai)
97. The Tribunal held that demands were to be made based on the show cause notice and the order in original/order in appeal could not differ from it. Accordingly, it held that where the show-cause notice was issued and the order in original confirmed the demand under the category of Business Support Services, the Commissioner (Appeals) was incorrect in confirming the demand under the category of Business Auxiliary Services in the order in appeal.
Deepak & Co. v. CCE – (2015) 38 STR 1010 (Tri.-Del.)
98. The Tribunal held that where there was a dispute regarding eligibility of CENVAT Credit of certain goods which had not reached a finality and there were conflicting decisions on the issue, the assessee could have entertained a reasonable belief that the credit was allowable. Further, in the absence of any material brought on record to prove suppression, misstatement, collusion, the extended period of limitation could not be invoked and no penalty could be imposed.
Umax Packaging Ltd v. CCE – 2016-TIOL-374-CESTAT- Del.
99. The Tribunal held that where the Revenue did not issue a show cause notice to the assessee, a proprietary concern taken over by a private company, but to the private company, no demand could be made on the assessee.
Narayana Coaching Centre v. CCE – (2015) 39 STR 33 (Tri. – Bang.)
Export of Services
100. The Tribunal held that where commission was paid by the Indian buyers directly to the assessee instead of the commission and price being paid to the foreign supplier who would in-turn remit the commission to the assessee, such receipts were deemed to be receipts in foreign exchange.
National Engineering Industries Ltd. v. CCE – 2016-TIOL-149-CESTAT-Del.
Penalty / Interest
101. The Tribunal held that where the assessee paid part of its service tax on a quarterly basis instead of monthly basis through its CENVAT credit account, no interest on service tax was payable since sufficient balance was available in the CENVAT credit account on a monthly basis.
Oil & Natural Gas Corporation Ltd. v. CCE & ST – (2015) 38 STR 867 (Tri.-Ahd.)
102. The Tribunal held that if the assessee had a bona fide belief and service tax liability was paid voluntarily for the period beyond the normal period of limitation, liability of interest did not arise.
Bank of Baroda v. CST – (2015) 40 STR 1069 (Tri. – Mum.)
103. The Tribunal held that renting of immovable property by individual co-owners was a service provided in individual capacity and not as an association of persons and therefore hey were not liable to pay service tax jointly or severally. It held that since they had paid appropriate service tax before initiation of investigation by the Department, no penalty under sections 76 and 78 were imposable.
CCE v. Deoram Vishrambhai Patel – (2015) 40 STR 1146 (Tri.-Mum.)
104. The Tribunal observed that where there was no evidence that fraud is committed with connivance of the assessee or within his knowledge and he has paid the entire service tax along with interest, penalty was to be waived.
Hemangi Enterprises v. CCE – (2015) 40 STR 945 (Tri.-Mum.)
105. The Tribunal held that even though some portion of service tax as determined by the central excise officer, was paid before issuance of show-cause notice, the prepayment would not be reduced while quantifying penalty under section 78 of the Act.
Amit Pandey Physics Classes v. CCE&ST – (2015) 64 taxmann.com 243 (Tri.-All.)
106. The Tribunal held that where the assessee paid entire amount of service tax on fees paid to the lead managers abroad before the issue of show-cause notice and had paid the interest soon after the adjudicating order was passed, no penalty was to be initiated specially since whatever tax was paid was available as CENVAT Credit to the assessee and therefore there was no intention to avoid payment of tax.
Bharat Forge Ltd. v. CCE – (2016) TIOL-12-CESTAT-Mum
107. The Tribunal held that where the issue of levy of service tax on commission from financial institutions and amounts as Target Incentive Schemes was settled by the Larger Bench, the assessee could have entertained a bona fide belief and therefore penalties were to be set aside by invoking section 80 of the Act.
Sharayu Motors v. CST – 2016-TIOL-132-CESTAT-Mum
108. The Court held that the statutory provision providing for the benefit of reduced penalty under section 78 on payment of reduced penalty along with due tax and interest within 30 days of date of communication of adjudication order is not available in appeal stage.
Principal Commissioner of ST v. Tops Security Ltd. – (2016) 41 STR 612 (Del.)
109. The Court held that interest on service tax could be recovered from the assessee only if the service tax was assessed as payable under section 72 or 73. In the present case, the assessee had paid tax under protest due to coercion and therefore the Court held that since no assessment was carried out, the revenue was incorrect in demanding interest.
ICICI Bank v. UOI – (2015) 38 STR 907 (Bom.)
Refund and Rebate
110. The Tribunal held that in the case of export of services, the relevant date for refund claim would be from the date on which the payment is received in convertible foreign exchange.
Alan Infrastructures Pvt. Ltd. v. CCE – (2015) 38 STR 1087 (Tri.-Del.)
111. The Tribunal held that limitation period of 1 year as provided under section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944 would apply to refund claim of taxable services only and not to exported services.
Alar Infrastructures Pvt. Ltd. v. CCE – (2015) 40 STR 1066 (Tri.-Del.)
112. The Court held that where the Tribunal rejected the stay application filed by the Department against the order of the CCE(A) granting refund to the assessee, the withholding of refund on the grounds that the appeal was yet to be decided on merits was incorrect.
Madura Coats Pvt Ltd. v. CCE – (2015) 39 STR 188 (Kar.)
113. The Tribunal held that where the assessee filed a refund claim within the time limit but before the wrong authority and subsequently filed the same with the correct authority after the period of limitation, the date of filing refund claim before the wrong authority could be taken as the date of filing for the purpose of determining limitation and that the claim was not barred by limitation.
CCE &ST v. Gimpex Ltd. – (2015) 39 STR 143 (Tri.- Beng.)
114. The Tribunal held that an Export Oriented Unit has an option to file refund claim for refund of unutilised CENVAT credit either on a quarterly basis or a monthly basis. Further, it held that since the notification issued under Rule 5 of the CENVAT Credit Rules does not link the refund procedure to the provisions of section 11B of the Central Excise Act, the provisions of time limit specified under section 11B of the Act would not be applicable to such refund claims.
Quality BPO Services Pvt. Ltd. v. CST – (2015) 39 STR 230 (Tri.-Ahd.)
115. The Tribunal held that the Commissioner was incorrect in revising the order granting refund under section 84 of the Act without issuing show-cause notice, since as per section 73 of the Act, issuing of show-cause notice even for recovery of erroneously granted refund was necessary.
Balaji Edibles Pvt. Ltd. v. CCE&ST – (2015) 39 STR 270 (Tri.-Del.)
116. The Tribunal held that in light of exemption benefit granted under section 26(1)(e) read with section 51 of the SEZ Act, 2005 having an overriding effect, the assessee was entitled to refund of service tax paid by it on input services wholly consumed within the SEZ, inspite of Notification No. 9/2009 as amended by Notification No. 15 / 2009.
Eon Kharadi Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. v. CCE – (2015) 39 STR 267 (Tri.-Mum.)
117. The Tribunal held that in the case of refund arising out of a Tribunal order, the time limit of one year was to be counted from the date of the Tribunal order and not from the date of payment of tax.
CCE v. Kusalva Finance Ltd. – (2015) 38 STR 1163 (Tri. – Beng.)
118. The Tribunal held that in case of associated concerns, where the assessee paid service tax on book adjustments made prior to May 10, 2008 in light of explanation to section 67 wherein it was provided that gross value charged would include book entries made in the books of accounts of persons liable to pay tax, interest on such tax could not be demanded for period prior to May 10, 2008 since the explanation sought to introduce a new provision and not to remove any doubts in the existing provision.
Kelly Services India P. Ltd. v. CCE&ST – (2015) 64 taxmann.com 26 (Tri.-Del.)
119. The Tribunal held that the asssessee was entitled to refund claim of service tax paid on Banking and other Financial Services for issuing IPO the proceeds of which were utilised for funding of SEZ in May 2007 since section 26 read with section 51 of the SEZ Act, 2005 exempted a developer of an SEZ or an SEZ unit from service tax payment on services received for authorised operations. The Tribunal noted that the said sections had an overriding effect and therefore Notification No. 4/2004-ST, relied on by the Department was inconsistent with provisions of SEZ Act inasmuch it did not provide for refund mechanism although services were intended for use in SEZ. Therefore, harmonious construction of Notification No. 4/2004-ST must perforce for a refund mechanism for earlier period also.
Reliance Industries Ltd. v. CCE – (2016) 41 STR 465 (Tri.-Mum.) 120. The Tribunal held that the Department was incorrect in denying the assessee refund on the ground that the refund was to be claimed at Mumbai since the foreign exchange was received in Mumbai, since the assessee had actually rendered services at Coimbatore.
CCE v. Cbay Systems (India) Pvt. Ltd. – (2016) 41 STR 488 (Tri.-Chen.)
121. The Tribunal held that denial of rebate claim on the ground that the input service do not have any nexus with the output service was not permissible and that the only thing that needed to be verified was whether the assessee paid tax or not.
Textron India Pvt. Ltd. v. CST – (2015) 39 STR 468 (Tri. – Beng.)
Service of Notice / Order
122. The Court held that where an order was served on a family member and there was no assertion by the assessee to the effect that the recipient was not a family member or not connected with its business, then it would amount to proper service of order.
Jyoti Enterprises v. CCE&ST – (2016) 41 STR 19 (All.)
123. The Tribunal held that any notice, merely issued but not served cannot be said to be within knowledge of person against whom notice is issued and ‘Issued to person’ used in section 106 to be construed as “Served to person”.
B.R. Ajit v. CCCE&ST – (2016) 41 STR 628 (Tri.-Bang.)
Show Cause Notice
124. The Tribunal held that where the SCN was vague and incoherent and did not contain any assertion proposing to levy and collect service tax on basis of any specified taxable service allegedly rendered except several alternative taxable services speculated to have been provided it resulted in serious transgression of due process of law and hence SCN and consequent OIO was unsustainable and liable to be quashed.
Shubham Electricals v. CCE&ST – (2015) 40 STR 1034 (Tri.-Del.)
125. The Court held that merely because the assessee paid duty in wrong accounting code it could not be treated as non-payment of duty and accordingly directed to credit the duty paid by the assessee by making necessary accounting entries.
Devang Paper Mills (P) Ltd. v. UOI – (2016) 41 STR 418 (Guj.)
126. The Tribunal held that no service tax was payable by the assessee’s Head Office in India on reverse charge basis on remittances made to its foreign branches for expenses incurred by the branches in availing services outside India. It held that an overseas permanent establishment of an assessee could not be treated as a service provider of the assessee since one could not provide a service to one’s self. It further held that the services were consumed outside India since overseas service providers had raised invoices directly on the branch offices and therefore the question of paying service tax on reverse charge basis did not arise.
Torrent Pharmaceuticals Ltd. v. CST (2015) 39 STR 97 (Tri.-Ahmd.)
127. The Court held that as the rate quoted by service provider / contractor was inclusive of service tax, they could not plead that the contract did not result in provision of service and therefore were liable to pay service tax thereon.
Ashish Kumar Dey v. Food Corporaton of India – (2016) 41 STR 403 (Tripura)
128. The Tribunal held that education cess / higher secondary education cess would also be eligible for exemption / refund along with basic excise duty even if the notification granting such exemption did not expressly state it.
Lupin Ltd. v. CCE&ST – (2016) 65 taxmann.com 282 (Tri.-Mum.)
129. The AAR held that provision of a car to an employee, during the course of his employment and only because the employee was in service would not constitute a service.
JP Morgan Services India Pvt. Ltd. – 2015-TIOL-12-AAR-ST
130. The Tribunal held that when the value of goods used was shown separately in the invoice and VAT / Sales Tax had been paid on it, the transaction was to be treated as sale and not as a service transaction.
Tanya Automobiles Pvt. Ltd. v. CCE&ST – 2016-TIOL-166-CESTAT-All
131. The Tribunal held that the reimbursement of marketing costs by the assessee to its overseas distributors was not in the nature of a discount as it benefitted the assessee as well. It further held that sales promotion expenses incurred were for services consumed by the assessee in India and that service tax would be payable by the assessee as a recipient of such services.
Torrent Pharmaceuticals Ltd. v. CST (2015) 39 STR 97 (Tri.-Ahmd.)
132. The Tribunal held that a letter communicating non-grant of centralised registration number was an appealable order and that even a recipient of service is entitled to obtain a centralised registration.
CCE v. Maharashtra State Bureau of Text Books Production & Curriculum Research – (2015) 39 STR 235 (Tri.- Mum.)
133. The assessee entered into a contract with Bihar State Electricity Board prior to June 1, 2007 for carrying out certain works. Subsequently, service tax was introduced on Works Contracts Services which was paid to the Department by the assessee, pursuant to which the assessee claimed reimbursement of the said tax from the Board who refused to pay the same. The Court held that under the Act, the liability for payment of service tax was fixed upon the service provider and though the service provider has a right to collect the service tax from the service recipient, there is no provision in the Act providing for such reimbursement. It also noted that under the terms of the contract, all taxes were to be borne by the service provider.
Mutli Engg & Scientific Corporation v. Bihar State Electricity Board – (2015) 39 STR 414 (Pat.)
134. The Tribunal held that selling of space for printing advertisements in an Almanac (book covered under the print media) would be outside the ambit of service tax.
CCE v. Media World Enterprises – (2015) 30 STR 259 (Tri.-Mum.)
135. The Tribunal held that excess payment of service tax in a month could be adjusted against service tax liability of other months.
General Manager BSNL v. CCE – (2015) 39 STR 278 (Tri.-Del.)
136. The Court held that the explanation to the definition of service inserted vide Finance Act, 2015 to enlarge the definition so as to cover the activities of lottery distributors was ultra vires, since the principle requirement of service is that the activity should be carried out by one person for another and for a consideration. Considering the fact that the assessee was acting in a principal to principal relationship with the State Government, buying and selling lottery tickets which could not fall under the definition of service per se, it held that if an activity was not covered under the definition of service, then the same could not be made taxable by way of an explanation inserted.
Future Gaming & Hotel Services Pvt. Ltd. v. UOI – (2015) 40 STR 833 (Sikkim)
137. The Tribunal held that provision of intellectual property service as complete on the date of transfer of such intellectual property and therefore when such date was before the introduction of service tax on such services, no service tax would be leviable even though royalty payments were received over a period of time including the period post introduction of service tax on the said service.
CST v. Denso Haryana P. Ltd. – (2015) 64 taxmann.com 203 (Tri.–Del.)
138. The Court held that the action of attaching bank accounts without giving the assessee an opportunity for hearing was in gross violation of Rule 3(2) of the Service Tax (Provisional Attachment of Property) Rules, 2008. Accordingly, the Court quashed the order and awarded costs to the assessee.
Kunj Power Project Pvt. Ltd. v. UOI – (2016) 41 STR 3 (All.)
139. The Tribunal held that the adjustment of excess service tax paid by the assessee on account of a calculation mistake against service
tax payments for subsequent periods was admissible.
Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd. v. CCE – (2016) 41 STR 475 (Tri.-Del.)
140. The Tribunal held that the rate of service tax applicable on hire purchase contracts would be the rate prevailing on the date of entering into the contract even if the rate
of tax increases during the period of the contract.
Jaylaxmi Credit Company Ltd. v. CCE (2015) 39 STR 164 (Tri.-Ahmd.)