A. Classification of Service
Authorised Service Station Services
1. The Tribunal held that where the assessee, a service station authorised by a manufacturer of motor vehicles was also engaged in carrying out servicing of other manufacturer, the services pertaining to the other manufacturers would not be liable to service tax under the category of authorised service station services.
Sefeway Motors v. CCE (2015) 38 STR 1005 (Tri.-Mum.)
Banking and Other Financial Services
2. The Tribunal held that the assessee, engaged in collecting octroi on vehicle transporting goods into municipal limits and remitting the same to the Municipal Corporation, did not perform a cash management activity under the Banking and Other Financial services category. Further, it held that the assessee was neither a banking company nor a financial institution and the term ‘any other person’ appearing in the definition of the impugned service was to be read ‘ejusdem generis’ with the preceding words contained therein.
Mega Enterprises v. CCE & C – (2015) 40 STR 528 (Tri. – Mum.)
3. The Tribunal held that without client custodian relationship and without entrusting the securities for safekeeping, the services performed by the assessee viz. agency services for the sale of bonds issued by the RBI to the public do not merit classification under Banking and Financial services and were liable under Business Auxiliary service and therefore amounts received from the RBI could not be considered as custodial service.
ICICI Bank Ltd v. CST – 2015-TIOL-1983-CESTAT-MUM
4. The Tribunal held that commission earned by banks for the activity of receiving and paying money on behalf of the RBI / Government of India was not liable to service tax.
Union Bank of India v. CCE&ST – (2015) 40 STR 308 (Tri. – Mum.)
Broadcasting Agency services
5. The Tribunal held that where the assessee, an independent representative of
Hong Kong, engaged in the soliciting of television advertisements on behalf of
Hong Kong, sold time slots for advertisements in India, the service provided by it was taxable in India as the radio / television programme was received in India and was intended for viewership by Indian public inspite of the fact that the beaming / encryption took place outside India and the advertisers made direct payment to
Hong Kong in USD. It held that the assessee was a broadcasting agency under section 65(16) and was liable to service tax under the category of Broadcasting services. It further, held that the amount received directly by
Hong Kong was not exempt under notification Nos. 6 / 99 and 21 / 2003 since no payments were received in India and even if they were received in the India, they was subsequently repatriated outside India. The Tribunal also held that the amount received in USD by
Hong Kong could not be considered as exports as the condition of receipt of convertible foreign exchange in India was not satisfied.
India Pvt Ltd v. CCE – (2015) 38 STR 884 (Tri. – Mum.)
Business Auxiliary / Support Services
6. The Tribunal held that where the assessee, a mandap keeper service provider received a donation from the decorator to whom it had granted a monopoly right for decoration in its premises, no service had been rendered by the assessee on behalf of the decorator and hence the donation received by it was not liable to service tax under the category of Business Auxiliary Services.
CCE v. Jain Kalar Samaj (2015) 38 STR 995 (Tri. – Mum.)
7. The Tribunal held that as per the Master Service agreement relating to the loan given by the assessee to its subsidiary by way of inter-corporate deposit, no conclusion could be reached that the advance was towards consideration of business support services to be rendered and therefore could not be subject to service tax.
Reliance Infratel Ltd v. CST – (2015) 39 STR 829 (Tri.-Mum.)
8. The Tribunal held that the assessee, engaged in disbursing salaries to Government teachers on the direction of the Zilla Parishad was not covered under the category of Business Auxiliary services as such activity was not related to sale or purchase of goods or services. Further, it held that the said amount received by the assessee could not be termed as amount received as a commission agent.
Janta Sahakari Bank Ltd v. CCE – (2015) 39 STR 856 (Tri. – Mum.)
9. The Tribunal held that the activity of the assessee viz. facilitation of payment of octroi by filling up forms and presenting the same to the octroi officer for clearance did not amount to Business Auxiliary Services as it did not amount to dealing with or handling documents of title and further, the assessee did not have any authority to transfer title.
Trimurti Octroi Company v. CCE – (2015) 40 STR 152 (Tri. – Mum.)
10. The Tribunal held that service tax could not be levied on the manufacture of alcohol based medicine as the medicines were manufactured as per the Drugs & Cosmetics Act and were liable to excise duty.
Mistair Health & Hygiene Pvt Ltd v. CCE – (2015) 40 STR 148 (Tri. – Mum.)
11. The Tribunal held that promotion / marketing of Computer Reservation Systems provided to overseas entities by employing computer data processing was not covered under Business Auxiliary Services during the period 1-7-2003 to 30-4-2006.
Abacus Distrbution Systems (India) Pvt. Ltd. v. CST – (2015) 40 STR 190 (Tri. – Mum.)
12. The Tribunal held that the assessee, engaged in collecting toll on behalf of NHAI for which it received commission, was neither promoting nor marketing services of its client and did not render any service incidental or auxiliary on behalf of NHAI and therefore the toll collection services could not be covered under Business Auxiliary Services.
Ideal Road Builders Pvt. Ltd. v. CST – (2015) 40 STR 480 (Tri. – Mum.)
13. The Tribunal held that the activity of supervision of loading and dispatch of molasses and arranging information of molasses lifted was not liable to service tax under the category of Business Auxiliary Services.
Chaddha Paper Mills Ltd v. CCE – (2015) 40 STR 812 (Tri. – Del.)
14. The Tribunal held that the assessee, a distributor of a binary network company, who appointed further distributors to create a chain of distributors who were under the compulsion to buy products from the shopping section of the company, was not an independent trader but a commission agent under the category of Business Auxiliary Services.
Lalit Dongre v. CCE – (2015) 40 STR 486 (Tri. – Mum.)
15. In light of decision by Andhra Pradesh High Court in Karvy Securities v. Union of India 2006(2) STR-481 setting aside CBEC circular dated 5-11-2003 wherein it was clarified that marketing of mutual funds and bonds were Business Auxiliary Services, the Tribunal held that no service tax was leviable on the said services.
CST v. ABN Amro Bank – (2015) 40 STR 187 (Tri. – Del.)
16. The Tribunal held that the supply of fly ash by the assessee to cement and asbestos companies for the purpose of manufacture of cement could not be considered as rendering of business support services since the cement companies did not outsource any service from the appellant for use in their business and the consideration for supply of fly ash was for the sale of fly ash and not towards any services irrespective of the fact that the assessee collected it as ‘service charge’.
Mettur Thermal Power Station v. CCE & ST – (2015) 38 STR 606 (Tri. – Chennai)
Cargo Handling Service
17. The Court held that as per common parlance, cargo means load to be carried by a ship, plane, rail or truck and the organised activity of handling such load is cargo handling. It held that the activity carried out by the assessee i.e., loading, unloading, packing, unpacking, stacking, re-stacking etc. of sugar bags from the mill floor to the godown or from one godown to another within the factory did not constitute cargo handling services since there was no activity of loading or unloading of movement outside the factory on public road, ship etc.
CCE v. Manoj Kumar – (2015) 40 STR 35 (All.)
Clearing and Forwarding Agent
18. The Apex Court held that the assessee, engaged in supervision of coal loading in railway wagons at the colliery on behalf of coal purchasers was not liable to service tax under the category of Clearing and Forwarding Agency services since its main job was supervision of coal loading and there was no clearing by the assessee since the goods was not under any legal detention requiring clearing. It held that the services provided by the assessee did not amount to forwarding either since the destination of the goods was pre-determined and the railways transported the goods to the purchases as per mutual contracts, not requiring any instruction from the assessee as to the destination of dispatch and also based on the fact that the assessee did not take custody of the coal.
Coal Handlers Pvt Ltd v. CCE – (2015) 38 STR 897 (SC)
19. The Tribunal held that preconstruction anti-termite treatment services were not covered under the category of commercial or industrial construction services or construction of complex services.
Premier Pest Control Pvt. Ltd. vs. CST (2015) 38 STR 870 (Tri.-Del.)
20. The Tribunal held that repair and renovation work viz. mason work, plastering, painting etc. carried out by the assessee in respect of office premises was liable to service tax under the category of commercial or industrial construction services and held that the services covered under the said category were not merely confined to services undertaken in relation to new buildings and also applied to services provided in relation to a part of the building and not only to cases where the services were provided for the entire building.
Kala Sagar v. CCE – (2015) 38 STR 1017 (Tri. – Mum.)
21. The Tribunal held that laying of pipelines for lift irrigation systems for transmission of water or sewage disposal undertaken for the Government or Government undertakings and involving associated activities such as trenching, soil preparation, masonry work etc. was classifiable only under Commercial or Industrial Construction services up to 1-6-2007 and not under Erection, Commissioning or Installation Services but however, since the services were not primarily for commercial or industrial services, they did not fall under the aforesaid construction services.
Lanco Infotech Ltd. v. CC, CE & ST – (2015) 38 STR 709 (Tri. – LB)
22. The Tribunal held that the assessee, engaged in the construction of residential complex for the accommodation of employees of ITC Ltd. was not liable to service tax since the activity was covered under ‘personal use’ and therefore excluded from the definition. Further, it held that since the tax required to be paid was paid by the sub-contractors, there was no liability on the main contractor i.e., the assessee as per the relevant CBEC Circular.
Nithesh Estates Ltd v. CCE, ST & C – (2015) 40 STR 815 (Tri. – Bang.)
23. The Tribunal held that construction services provided by a sub-contractor to the main contractor who had in turn contracted with the Government of India for building residential complexes for the Delhi police, would not be considered as ‘commercial or industrial construction services’ since the services provided by the sub-contractor would also be considered as construction services in respect of a building used for non-commercial purposes. It held that merely because the construction was done by a sub-contractor, it would not change the nature of activity from non-commercial to commercial.
RB Chy Ruchi Ram Khattar & Sons v. CST – (2015) 38 STR 583 (Tri. – Del.)
Consulting Engineers Services
24. The Tribunal held that the activities of finalising vessels / ships for movement of men and material from an island to the mainland, overseeing progress of construction of vessel and conducting tests on various machinery of the ship were not covered under Consulting Engineer Services.
Shipping Corporation of India Ltd v. CCE – (2015) 40 STR 468 (Tri. – Mum.)
Goods Transportation Agency
25. The Tribunal held that the transportation of goods by individual truck owners without issue of consignment note would be simple transportation and not the service of Goods Transport Agency.
Bhima Sahakari Karkhana Ltd. v. CCE – 2015-TIOL-2134-CESTAT-MUM
Health and Fitness Service
26. The Tribunal held that the amount collected for conducting aerobics and yoga classes was liable to service tax under the category of Health and Fitness services in view of the decision in Osho International Foundation v. CCE (2015) 40 STR 530 (T).
Malabar Hill Citizen Forum v. CCE – (2015) 40 STR 480 (Tri. – Mum.)
Manpower recruitment and supply services
27. The Tribunal held that where the assessee was responsible for cutting sugarcane from the fields and delivering the same to the sugar factories either by availing services of labour provided by the sugar factories or the labour contractors, the services provided by the assessee to the sugar factories could not be considered as manpower recruitment services.
Shriram OOS Tod Majdoor Seva Sangh vs. CST (2015) 38 STR 1052 (Tri.-Mum.)
CCE v. Shriram Sao TVS Ltd. (2015) 39 STR 75 (Tri. – Mum.)
Market Research Agency Service
28. The Tribunal held that consultancy and professional services rendered by an IIT engineer for metal development could not be made liable for Service tax under Market Research Agency Services.
Metal Development Co v. CCE & ST – (2015) 40 STR 545 (Tri. – Mum.)
Outdoor Caterer Services
29. The Tribunal held that the activity of preparing meals as per a fixed menu and supplying it to various schools of Chandigarh Administration under the Mid-Day Meal scheme of the Government was not liable to service tax under the category of Outdoor Caterer Services.
Ambedkar Institute of Hotel Management v. CCE – (2015) 40 STR 823 (Tri. – Del.)
30. The Tribunal held that the assessee, a co-operative society running canteen service in the recipients premises and providing food, snacks etc. to the employees of the company was liable to service tax under the category of Outdoor Catering Services.
Alfa Laval (I) Ltd. Employees Co-op. Consumers Society v. CCE – (2015) 40 STR 255 (Tri. – Mum.)
Prospecting mineral oil service
31. The Tribunal held that the assessee, engaged in the activity of making preliminary exploration report, based on survey and detailed exploration report of mineral deposit for which they were paid grant-in-aid by the Government of India was not liable to service tax since no consideration had been paid by the Government to the assessee for undertaking the said work and what has been received from the Government was only the reimbursement of the actual expenses involved and also that the survey reports were retained by the assessee and not provided to the Government.
Mineral Exploration Corporation Ltd. v. CCE – (2015) 60 taxmann.com 227 (Tri. – Mum.)
32. The Court held that services provided by vessels for prospecting mineral oil consumed by Continental Shelf of India came into the tax net only after Notification No. 14 / 2010-ST came into effect.
Greatship (India) Ltd. v. CST – (2015) 39 STR 754 (Bom.)
Renting of Immovable Property
33. The Court held that the definition of the expression ‘renting of immovable property’ read with Explanation to section 65(105)(zzzz) of the Act included lease of various plots allotted by the assessee for business / commercial purposes and rent collected in respect of lease so executed was liable to service tax and that the period of lease was of no consequence. It further held that the Act makes no distinction between a statutory body and an individual and therefore activities which were not in the nature of a statutory activity for a consideration was liable to service tax if it fell under the scope of a taxable service.
Greater Noida Industrial Development Authority v. CCCE – (2015) 40 STR 95 (All.)
34. The Tribunal held that the definition of renting of immovable property service specifically excluded buildings used for accommodation, including hotels and therefore, the assessee was not liable to pay service tax on renting of a building for the purpose of running a hotel.
Ashok Enterprises v. CCEC & ST – (2015) 40 STR 584 (Tri. – Bang.)
35. The Court held that the scope of Renting of Immovable Property service was expanded to renting of vacant land or licence for business or commerce purposes and that in view of the exclusion of vacant land from the ambit of immovable property prior to 1-7-2010, it could not be said that the clause (105)(zzzz) was clarificatory and retrospective in nature.
CST v. Greater Noida Development Authority – (2015) 40 STR 46 (All.)
Storage and Warehousing Services
36. The Court held that staff deputed by the State Excise for the supervision of storage of foreign liquor to ensure compliance with the State excise laws did not provide services to the liquor contractors or the persons storing the liquor on behalf of the Government, but were in the nature of fees levied for supervision to ensure proper functioning of the warehouse, and therefore the demand of service tax on charges recovered by the staff under the category of Storage and Warehouse services was incorrect.
CCE&E v. State of Madhya Pradesh – (2015) 38 STR 954 (MP)
37. The Tribunal held that club membership charges and club privilege charges received by RIL, which formed part of the scheme used for marketing the telephone services provided by the assessee could not be subject to service tax under the category of telephone services. RIL, who was permitted to market its own products along with the assessee, had remitted to the assessee, the tariff plans pertaining to the assessee’s telephone services on which service tax had been paid. The Tribunal observed that RIL was not a telegraph authority and accordingly did not fall under the scope of agent under section 65(7) and therefore the club membership fees and club privilege charges could not be included as telephone services as they were not incidental to the service of telephone connection. It also observed that the value of handsets supplied by RIL under the scheme was a sale of goods not liable to service tax.
CST vs. Reliance Infocomm Ltd. – (2015) 38 STR 558 (Tri-Mumbai)
Works contract Services
38. The Tribunal held that construction of canals for irrigation, construction or laying of pipelines for lift irrigation integrated into a dam project was to be classified as works contract in respect of dam and therefore excluded from the scope of Works Contract Services.
It further held that services relating to the construction of canals / pipelines / conduits to support irrigation, provided to the Government, executed under the turnkey mode would fall within the ambit of Works Contract Services but would not be chargeable to service tax since they are not for commercial or industrial purposes.
Additionally, it held that where the principal contract, in terms of an agreement with the contractee, assigns the entire works to a sub-contractor and such works is incorporated into the works on the property belonging to the contractee, the principal contractor could not be considered to have provided works contract services since the property passed from the sub-contractor to the contractee.
Lanco Infratech Ltd. vs. CC,CE&ST (2015) 38 STR 709 (Tri.-LB)
39. The Apex Court held that section 65(105) of Finance Act, 1994 levies service tax only on contracts simplicitor and not on composite indivisible works contracts, and therefore where assessment machinery provisions were absent and the law was vague, it was arbitrary to levy service tax on indivisible composite works contracts. It held that the Parliament could only tax the service element and the States could only tax the transfer of property in goods and therefore the two elements had to be completely segregated or it would be unconstitutional.
CCE&C v. Larsen & Toubro Ltd. – (2015) 39 STR 913 (SC)
40. The Court held that levy of service tax on services provided by restaurants, hotel inns, guest houses, clubs etc. was on the service aspect of the transaction and not on the sale of goods.
Ballal Auto Agency v. UOI – (2015) 40 STR 51 (Kar.)
41. The High Court held that where there was no monetary consideration in the transaction, section 65 of the Finance Act, 1994 provided for various methods for valuation and it was for the assessee to establish the plea made by it, i.e., tax should be demanded on the basis of the cost of land for the 24 flats allotted by it to the land owner as the share equivalent of the land provided.
Southern Properties & Promoters v. CCE – (2015) 61 taxmann.com 423 (Mad.)
42. The Tribunal held that reimbursement of expenses was not includable while determining gross value of services, considering that the High Court in Intercontinental Consultants & Technocrats Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India 2013 (29) STR 9 (Del.) struck down Rule 5(1) of the Valuation Rules, being ultra vires sections 66 and 67 of the Act.
Tetra Pack India Pvt. Ltd. vs. CCE – (2015) 39 STR 995 (Tri. – Mum.)
43. The Tribunal held that the demand computed by the Department on the value of oil and supply items on which VAT Payment had been made and which was clearly indicated in the invoice issued by the assesseee was unsustainable as it was outside the purview of service tax.
Technocrate Transformers v. CCE – (2015) 39 STR 996 (Tri. – Del)
C. CENVAT Credit
44. The Court held that towers and shelters were immovable property and therefore the assessee was not entitled to credit of duty paid on them.
Vodafone India Ltd v. CCE – (2015) 40 STR 422 (Bom.)
45. The Tribunal held that the term ‘any office’ contained in the definition of Input Service Distributor was not limited to physical boundaries only but was to be interpreted to include offices which distribute credit and therefore allowed the distribution of credit by the assessee’s Regional Office instead of Head Office.
India Cement Ltd. v. CCE – (2015) 40 STR 497 (Tri. – Chennai)
46. The Tribunal held that in the absence of registration as an input service distributor under Rule 3 of the Service Tax (Registration of Special Category of Persons) Rules, 2005, the zonal office of the bank could not pass on credit to their respective branches.
CCE&ST v. Punjab National Bank (2015) 38 STR 586 (Tri. – Del.)
47. The Tribunal held that printing for distribution of calendars, greeting cards and diaries on account of sales promotion and organising functions for giving rewards to persons providing innovative marketing ideas was a part of the business activity of the assessee.
Ultratech Cement Ltd. v. CCE – (2015) 40 STR 523 (Tri. – Del.)
48. The Tribunal allowed the assessee CENVAT credit of service tax on car parking availed at the Head office for parking cars of its management, being directly related to the business of manufacturing.
Goodyear India Ltd. v. CCE – (2015) 40 STR 546 (Tri. – Del.)
49. The Tribunal held that merely because the invoice issued by the service provider mentioned the service as IT Service as opposed to Management Consultancy Service, for which it was registered, the department was not correct in denying the assessee credit since there was no dispute that the service tax was deposited by the service provider. Further, it held that CENVAT credit of service tax paid on fees paid to the auditor for filing tax returns was admissible as the same had a direct nexus with running the business of the assessee.
Adecco Flexione Workforce Solution Pvt. Ltd. v. CCE & ST – (2015) 40 STR 564 (Tri. – Bang.)
50. The Tribunal held that the CENVAT credit availed by the assessee of service tax paid on inspection of safety fitness of its CNG cylinders was admissible since CNG could only be filled in those cylinders which were certified fit and therefore was integrally connected with the business of sale of CNG.
Mahanagar Gas Ltd. v. CCE – (2015) 40 STR 586 (Tri. – Mum.)
51. The Tribunal held that unless the CENVAT credit wrongly availed was utilised there would be no payment of interest.
TV Sundram Iyenger and Sons Ltd v. CCE – 2015-TIOL-2081-CESTAT-MAD
52. The Tribunal allowed CENVAT credit of service tax paid on rent of storage premises situated outside the factory since the premises were used in relation to the business activity and services being intangible in nature unlike inputs or capital goods was not liable to be confined to the factory premises for them to be considered as input services.
Vako Seals Pvt. Ltd. v. CCE – (2015) 40 STR 594 (Tri. – Mum.)
53. The Tribunal allowed CENVAT credit of service tax paid on security services provided at a guest house nearby used exclusively for the lodging of its employees and auditors while they rendered services to the assessee.
ISMT Ltd. v. CC&CE – (2015) 40 STR 596 (Tri. – Mum.)
54. The Tribunal allowed the assessee CENVAT credit of duty / service tax paid on inputs, capital goods and input services used for construction / erection of towers for use by the telecom companies.
Essar Telecom Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. v. CST – (2015) 40 STR 591 (Tri. – Mum.)
55. The Tribunal held that where it was a statutory requirement of the assessee to maintain a garden and to provide food to its employees, credit on garden maintenance services and outdoor catering services was admissible. Further, it held that CENVAT credit on maintenance and repairs of factory and office relating to the factor was admissible.
Cargill India Pvt. Ltd. v. CCE, C&ST (2015) 38 STR 587 (Tri.-Bang.)
56. The Tribunal allowed credit of duty paid on cement and steel used in the construction of new jetties and other commercial buildings. It also held that amendment to Explanation 2 to Rule 2(k) was not clarificatory in nature as whenever the legislature wants to clarify the provision it clearly mentions so in the notification which was not so in the present case.
Mundra Ports & SEZ Ltd. v. CCE& C – (2015) 39 STR 726 (Guj)
57. The Tribunal held that where the assessee was a manufacturer and a service provider and had acquired separate registrations as a manufacturer and service provider, credit on input services used for providing output services could be utilised for the payment of excise duty as there was no restriction on such cross utilisation.
S. S. Engineers v. CCE (2015) 38 STR 614 (Tri. – Mum.)
58. The Tribunal held that credit distributed by the head office without input service distributor registration prior to the rules for registration coming into effect, was admissible since the credit pertained to the manufacturing activity of the assessee and procedural law is directory and not mandatory.
Pricol Ltd. v. CCE (2015) 38 STR 668 (Tri. – Chennai)
59. The Tribunal held that CENVAT credit of service tax paid on outward transportation of sugar to the railway station / load port was allowable since the railway station / port was the place of removal. Further, in relation to the transportation of dry sugar from the assessee’s factory to its sister concerns, it held that the CENVAT credit could have been taken either by the assessee or its sister concerns and therefore the claim made by the assessee was revenue neutral and did not have to be reversed.
Tatyasaheb KoreWarana S.S.K Ltd. v. CCE (2015) 38 STR 575 (Tri. – Mumbai)
60. The Tribunal held that credit of service tax paid on security services availed for protection of the factory was admissible being inextricably linked to the manufacturing facility. It further held that the credit of service tax on sales commission for sales promotion of the assessee’s products was admissible.
SAR Ispat Pvt. Ltd. v. CCE (2015) 38 STR 829 (Tri. – Chennai)
61. The Tribunal held that where it was the statutory obligation for the assessee to maintain a canteen for providing food to its employees and no amount was recovered from the employees, credit on outdoor catering services was admissible.
Further, it held that credit on rent-a-cab services used for transportation of passengers from their residence to the factory and vice versa, credit on outward transportation services for transportation of goods to the buyers place and credit of auction services for sale of waste and scrap arising in the course of manufacture was admissible, being a service integral to the manufacturing activity of the appellant.
As regards club and association services availed for officials visiting outside the city the Tribunal held it was admissible as the same was incurred in the course of business.
Mangalam Cements Ltd. v. CCE (2015) 38 STR 635 (Tri-Del.)
62. The Tribunal held that where the assessee had on account of its inability to correctly determine the service tax payable by it, discharged its service tax liability on an estimate basis and thereafter adjusted the excess service tax paid against its tax liability for subsequent months, the benefit of CENVAT credit could not be denied merely because the prescribed procedure was not followed.
BSNL v. CCE (2015) 38 STR 1182 (Tri. – Del.)
63. The Court held that the service of transportation of employees from their residence to the factory premises was an input service under the CENVAT Credit Rules.
CCE v. Federal Mogul Goetze (India) Ltd. – (2015) 39 STR 735 (P&H)
64. The Tribunal held that credit of service tax paid in respect of a windmill farm located at a distance of 100 kms. from the manufacturing unit was not admissible since neither the power generated at the windmill farm could be termed as an intermediate product nor could it be termed as captive consumption of electricity for the manufacture of final product.
Rajshanti Metals Pvt. Ltd. v. CCE – (2015) 39 STR 875 (Tri. – Ahd.)
65. The Tribunal held that credit availed on input services received at the unregistered branch for the purpose of providing output services, by the centralized office on the basis of documents pertaining to the said branch office which was subsequently registered was to be allowed. Further, it held that the disallowance of credit in respect of invoice for telephone services raised in the directors name but having mention of the office address, was uncalled for.
Ketan Motors Ltd. v. CCE – (2015) 39 STR 858 (Tri. – Mum.)
66. The Court held that catering, photography and mandap keeper services availed by the assessee for the celebrations hosted for passing out of its students and the repair of vehicle and other travelling expenses incurred in relation thereto were not relatable to commercial training and coaching services and therefore credit was inadmissible.
Bansal Classes v. CCE & ST – (2015) 30 STR 967 (Raj.)
67. The Tribunal held that the definition of input service provided under Rule 2(1) of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 specifically included services “in relation to setting up, premises of provider of output service or an office relating to such premises” and accordingly, the services used for setting up the stadium such as Architect Services, Consulting Engineers Services, Management Consultancy Services were eligible input services.
Maharashtra Cricket Association v. Commissioner of Central Excise – 2015-TIOL-2418-CESTAT-MUM
68. The Tribunal held that where the assessee has paid service tax to service provider, CENVAT credit is available to service receiver without finding whether service tax paid by him to service provider stands deposited in the Government treasury.
Adecco Flexione Workforce Solutions Ltd. v. CCE – (2015) 40 STR 288 (Tri. – Bang.)
69. The Tribunal held that outdoor catering service was an eligible input service irrespective of whether subsidised food was provided or not or whether the cost of the food was given by the worker or by the factory and even if there was no statutory requirement of provision of food to workers in the factory.
Paramount Communication Ltd. v. CCE – (2015) 40 STR 265 (Tri. – Del.)
70. The Tribunal held that CENVAT Credit was admissible in accordance with Rule 3 of the Rules and therefore, credit on input services availed for the trading activities of the assessee, not being an output services was not admissible. It further held that since the assessee had not disclosed the input service credit in relation to the trading activity in its ST-3 returns, it amounted to a suppression of facts and therefore the extended period of limitation was correctly invoked.
Synise Technologies Ltd. v. CCE – (2015) 30 STR 903 (Tri. – Mum.)
71. The Tribunal disallowed the claim of CENVAT credit in the present case as the assessee had taken credit as a manufacturer at its Pune factory and utilised the same for discharging service tax liability on renting of immovable property at Mumbai. It held that there being no nexus of input credit with output service, CENVAT credit was inadmissible.
Dai Ichi Karkaria Ltd. v. CCE – (2015) 40 STR 275 (Tri. – Mum.)
72. The Larger Bench of the Tribunal held that Erection, Commission or Installation Service and Management, Maintenance or Repair Service used by windmills for generation of electricity away from the factory premises which was used in the factory are input services.
Parry Engg. Electronics Pvt. Ltd. v. CCE – (2015) 40 STR 243 (Tri. – LB)
73. The Tribunal held that a manufacturer of goods was entitled to avail CENVAT credit on services availed in setting up the factory.
CCE v. Technico Industries Ltd – (2015) 40 STR 259 (Tri. – Del.)
74. The Tribunal held that the assessee was eligible to claim CENVAT Credit of service tax paid on construction of manufacturing plant and rental of immovable property on which its plant was erected as the final product of the assessee could not have been manufactured without the factory and the land on which it was constructed thereby falling under the definition of input service.
CCE v. Bellsonica Auto Components India Pvt. Ltd. – (2015) 40 STR 41 (P&H)
75. The Tribunal allowed CENVAT credit on outdoor catering services for canteens as it was essential to run the business of the assessee, garden maintenance services as it was statutorily required, event management services as it was essential to the business being incurred at opening and ceremonial occasions and brokerage services incurred for finding residential accommodation for its employees thereby ensuring availability of staff.
Gateway Terminals India Pvt. Ltd. v. CCE (2015) 39 STR 1027 (Tri. – Mum.)
76. The Tribunal held that the definition of input services containing the terms ‘directly’, ‘indirectly’ and ‘in relation to’ was wide enough to include consulting engineer services used in the development and manufacture of vehicle prototypes used for the ultimate manufacturing activity of the assessee. Accordingly, it allowed the assessee’s claim of CENVAT credit of service tax paid on the aforesaid service.
Tata Motors Ltd. v. CCE – (2015) 40 STR 269 (Tri. – Mum.)
77. The Tribunal held that there was no provision in Rule 6(3) of the CENVAT Credit Rules stating that if the assessee did not opt for any option at any particular time, then Rule 6(3A)(i) providing for payment of 5 per cent of the value of exempted services was automatically applicable. It held that there was no time limit to exercise the option though the intention to avail a particular option was to be made before the actual availing of the option.
Mercedes Benz India Pvt. Ltd. v. CCE – (2015) 40 STR 381 (Tri. – Mum.)
78. The Tribunal allowed the assessee’s claim of CENVAT credit of service tax paid on construction of dormitories / residential colony since the assessee’s manufacturing activities were continuous and the factory was located in a remote area, therefore requiring the aforesaid construction to ensure continuity of business.
CCE v. Bajaj Hindustan Ltd. – (2015) 40 STR 379 (Tri.-Del.)
79. The Court held that if the assessee had paid tax on a non-taxable service that he was not liable to pay, the availing of CENVAT credit on such tax paid cannot be termed as illegal and accordingly dismissed the Revenue’s appeal.
CCE&ST v. Tamil Nadu Petroproducts Ltd. – 2015-TIOL-2600-HC-MAD-CX
80. The Tribunal allowed CENVAT credit of service tax paid on security services, pest control and repair and maintenance of coolers in the employee’s residence colony as well as service tax paid on the maintenance of river pump and security service in relation to the guest house of the assessee.
Ultratech Cement Ltd. v. CCE – (2015) 40 STR 284 (Tri. – Mum.)
81. The Tribunal held that where the assessee had paid service tax on output transportation services twice, once in cash and another by utilising CENVAT credit, it was correct in subsequently taking suo motu credit of the double utilisation.
JK Lakshmi Cement Ltd. v. CCE&ST – (2015) 40 STR 618 (Tri. – Del.)
82. The Tribunal allowed CENVAT credit of service tax paid on freight inward, telecommunication, security service, insurance, consultancy and courier services as the said services were used in the manufacture of excisable goods in the course of business.
CCE v. SKH Metals Ltd. – (2015) 40 STR 690 (Tri. – Del.)
83. The Tribunal held that if service tax was paid by service provider and service receiver was eligible for CENVAT credit, responsibility to examine correctness of service tax paid by service provider was not cast upon the service receiver. Accordingly, relying on various decisions, the Tribunal allowed CENVAT Credit in spite of the fact that the service provider was registered for installation and commissioning services and the service availed was that of equipment rent.
India Vision Satellite Communications Ltd. v. CCE, C & ST – (2015) 39 STR 698 (Tri. – Bang.)
84. The Tribunal held that CENVAT credit of service tax paid on construction services used for construction of hostel/quarters for employees being in relation to manufacturing business was admissible.
Mahindra Ugine Steel Co.Ltd v. CCE – 2015-TIOL-1716-CESTAT-MUM
85. The Tribunal held that services of general insurance for group and medical policies were in respect of the employees and as per the statutory provisions under the Factory Act and therefore were allowable. Further, it held that in respect of bills in personal name, the expenditure towards the bills was booked in the assessee’s account and therefore the credit claimed was allowable.
CST v. FIL Capital Advisors India Pvt. Ltd. – (2015 – TIOL – 2106 – CESTAT – MUM)
86. Where the assessee’s head office was centrally registered for service tax and as a Input Service Distributor, the Tribunal held that availing of and distribution of credit pertaining to services received at the assessee’s branch office by the Head Office was legal and proper in view of the facts that the Branch office had no separate accounting system and the branch accounts formed part of the Head Office accounts.
Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd. v. CCE (2015) 38 STR 830 (Tri.-Mumbai)
87. The Court held that even if the assessee has alternate remedy to file appeal before the Tribunal, writ is maintainable since there is a provision of mandatory pre-deposit before filing appeal.
Dileep Kumar V.S. v. Union of India – (2015) 39 STR 972 (Ker.)
88. The Court held that the Service Tax Voluntary Compliance Encouragement Scheme was not an independent code and was part and parcel of the Finance Act 1994 and that all provisions of the Act including those relating to appeals would be applicable unless specifically excluded.
Narasimha Mills Pvt. Ltd. v. CCE – (2015) STR 795 (Mad.)
89. The Court held that even if the assessee did not comply with the provisions of pre-deposit as per the stay order at first but had done so belatedly, the appeal could not be dismissed without hearing on merits.
Top Security Ltd. v. CCE & ST – (2015) 39 STR 964 (Bom.)
90. The Court held that dismissal of delayed appeal by Commissioner (Appeals) for want of application for condonation of delay was valid and that the assessee could not contend that the Commissioner was to point out the defect in filing appeal.
Adhunik Power Transmission Ltd. v. UOI –  61 taxmann.com 124 (Jharkhand)
91. The High Court observed that as per section 85(3A) of the Finance Act, 1994, the appeal had to be presented within two months from the date of receipt of the order. Relying upon section 35-O of the Central Excise Act, 1944, it held that for computing the period of limitation prescribed for an appeal, the day on which the order was served has to be excluded and that in the instant case the delay of two days was not too fatal and a liberal approach should have been adopted while handling the matter and the matter therefore, was remanded to decide the appeal on merits.
Rotomac Global Pvt. Ltd. v. CCE – (2015) 60 taxmann.com 181 (All.)
92. The Court held that the delay by the Commissioner in passing the order after almost 22 months of the date of personal hearing was contrary to public interest. Considering the number of files and matters pending, the Court ordered the Commissioners to place on record complete data and figures of the pending cases with the time required to dispose of these cases.
M/s. S2 Infotech Pvt. Ltd. v. The Union of India & Ors. – 2015-TIOL-1888-HC-MUM-ST
93. The Court held that the adjudicating authorities were to follow the order of Larger Bench unless the factual situation of the case calls for different interpretation of law.
Muthoot Finance Ltd. v. Union of India – (2015) 40 STR 26 (Ker.)
94. The High Court upheld the order of the Tribunal extending the stay granted to the assessee due to failure to dispose of the appeal within 365 days of the stay order considering the large volume of cases pending before the few number of Tribunal benches.
CCE v. Chotelal Virendra Kumar – (2015) 39 STR 721 (Raj.)
Demand / Extended Period
95. The Supreme Court relying on the decision of Commissioner of Central Excise, Ahmedabad v. Asarwa Mills [2015 (319) ELT 216 (SC) held that the appellant cannot be faulted with for adopting a valuation mechanism prior to the issuance of the clarificatory circular, clarifying the manner of valuation of captively consumed goods and therefore since there was no misdeclaration or misstatement, the extended period invoked by the Department for non-inclusion of certain costs in arriving at the value for captive consumption, was not invokable.
Greaves Ltd v. CCE & C – (2015) 322 ELT 772 (SC)
96. The Court held that that recovery u/s. 87 of the Finance Act, 1994, could be resorted to only after an amount was adjudicated to be due to the Central Government and therefore could not be adopted by the Department without issuance of a demand notice. Accordingly, the proceedings were quashed.
Gopala Builders v. Directorate General of Central Excise Intelligence – 2015-TIOL-2451-HC-AHM-ST
97. The Tribunal held that Notification No. 14/2004-ST providing exemption under Business Auxiliary Service to four industries viz. agriculture, printing, textile processing and education applied to the assessee who was engaged in manufacture and export of textile products and therefore commission paid to the overseas agents to promote export sales was an activity incidental or auxiliary to processing of textile goods and covered by Clause (d) of the notification. Accordingly, it was held that the benefit of exemption Notification No. 14/2004 was available and the demand of service tax under reverse charge was set aside.
Texyard International v. CCE – (2015) 60 taxmann.com 394 (Tri. – Chennai)
Export of Services
98. The Court held that where the assessee was engaged in providing steamer agency services to foreign entities during the period wherein the exemption for receipts in foreign exchange was not in force, the services rendered would not be liable to service tax even in the absence of such exemption, since the recipient of the services was located abroad and the consideration was received by the assessee in convertible foreign exchange, therefore amounting to an export of services.
CST v. Maersk India Pvt. Ltd. – (2015) 38 STR 1121 (Mum.)
99. The Tribunal held that the assessee, who procured orders from Indian customers for overseas manufacturers in consideration of commission from the overseas manufacturers, was not liable to service tax since the services could not be considered as services provided in India.
ATE Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. v. CST – (2015) 39 STR 81 (Tri. – Mum.)
100. The Tribunal held that the assessee, engaged in preparing feasibility reports and sending them abroad to enable foreign investors to decide on investments in India was an export of service as the service was utilised outside India and the remuneration for services was received in convertible foreign exchange.
Mount Kellett Management I Pvt. Ltd. v. CST – (2015) 40 STR 165 (Tri. – Mum.)
101. The Tribunal, relying on the decision of Vodafone Essar Cellular Ltd. v. CCE – (2013) 31 STR 738 (Tri.) held that were the assessee provided services to its principals located outside India by marketing their products in India, it would be considered as an export of services since the recipient was located outside India.
CST v. Bayer Material Science Pvt. Ltd. – (2015) 38 TR 1206 (Tri. – Mum.)
Penalty / Interest
102. Where the assessee, a telephone service provider had collected amounts for fixed wireless service from the subscriber by way of adjustment against security deposits and had failed to pay service tax on the same but duly paid the tax and interest before the issue of show cause notice, the Tribunal deleted the penalty imposed by the Department relying on CCE v. Adecco Flexione Workforce Solutions Ltd. – (2012) 26 STR 3 (Kar.)
CST vs. Reliance Infocomm Ltd. (2015) 38 STR 558 (Tri. – Mumbai)
103. The Tribunal held that where the payment arising out of CENVAT discrepancies pointed out in the course of Audit conducted by the Central Excise team was made by the assessee along with interest and without contesting it further, the show cause notice for levy of penalty could not be issued.
Racold Thermo Ltd. v. CCE –  61 taxmann.com 244 (Mumbai)
104. The Court held that where refund ordered was paid by the Department to the assessee, withholding interest thereon considering that if interest is also paid, the appeal before the Supreme Court would be rendered infructuous was not the correct understanding of law.
Tahnee Heights Co-op. Housing Society Ltd. v. The Union of India – 2015- TIOL-1828-HC-MUM-ST
105. Where the assessee had taken CENVAT credit on the basis of xerox copies of invoices but did not argue against the demand before the Tribunal and the adjudicating authority had not quantified the penalty u/r. 15(4) of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 with reasons, the Tribunal condoned the penalty.
Pricol Ltd. v. CCE (2015) 38 STR 668 (Tri.-Chennai)
106. The Court held that waiver of penalty u/s. 80 for delayed payment of taxes may not be available on the sole ground of financial hardship and that penalty was imposable even in cases where tax is paid before issuance of show cause notice.
Bootleggers Island v. CESTAT – (2015) 39 STR 569 (Mad.)
107. The High Court held that section 80 opens with non obstante clause and therefore once the assessee proves that there was reasonable cause for the said failure, section 80 starts to operate insulating imposition of all the penalties stated therein viz. penalties u/s. 76, 77 and 78 of the Finance Act, 1994
Akbar Travels of India Pvt. Ltd. v. CCE – (2015) 60 taxmann.com 152 (Ker.)
108. The Tribunal held that mere taking credit without utilising the same will not attract interest as well as penalty and therefore where the assessee had wrongly availed CENVAT credit but not utilised the same, no penalty or interest was applicable. It held that the amendment to Rule 14 of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 substituting “taken or utilised” by the term “taken and utilised” for the levy of interest being clarificatory in nature would apply retrospectively.
Tilaknagar Industries Ltd v. CCE – 2015 – TIOL – 1628 – CESTAT – MUM.
109. The Tribunal held that where the assessee regularly paid service tax under reverse charge on certain input services but failed to pay tax on a few transactions owing to oversight, which was paid subsequently, the imposition of penalty under sections 77 and 78 of the Act were not warranted especially considering the fact that the assessee would be eligible to avail CENVAT credit of the tax paid. However, it imposed interest on the delayed payment, dismissing the argument of revenue neutrality.
Forbes Marshall Pvt. Ltd. v. CCE – (2015) 38 STR 843 (Tri.-Mumbai)
Refund and rebate
110. The Tribunal held that refund was to be granted on the basis of CENVAT credit available in the CENVAT account and not on the basis of closing balance of CENVAT Credit shown in the ST-3 returns and since the correct balance was disclosed in the revised returns, it dismissed the rejection of the refund claim made by the Department for non-mention of CENVAT closing balance in ST-3 returns.
Serco Global Services Pvt. Ltd. v. CCE – (2015) 39 STR 892 (Tri. – Del.)
111. The Tribunal held that refund of CENVAT and availment of CENVAT credit for want of registration at the time of exports could cannot be rejected and that subsequent registration shall also be considered sufficient compliance for refund of CENVAT credit.
Embitel Technologies (India) Pvt. Ltd. v. CST – (2015) 39 STR 612 (Tri. – Bang.)
112. The Tribunal held that the service receiver may claim refund of wrong service tax paid by service provider even when the same is not shown separately on the invoice, provided the service provider had discharged service tax considering receipts to be inclusive of the service tax.
Abraham Pothen v. CCE – (2015) 39 STR 676 (Tri. – Bang.)
113. The Tribunal held that registration with the Department was not a pre-requisite for claiming refund when there was no such stipulation in Rule 5 of the CENVAT Credit Rules and therefore dismissed the rejection of refund claim by the Department on the ground of non-registration of the assessee.
Dorling Kindersley India Pvt. Ltd. v. CCE&ST – (2015) 40 STR 598 (Tri. – Del.)
114. The Tribunal allowed refund of service tax paid on legal services obtained in relation to filing of State tax returns of a branch office of the assessee in the USA.
HCL Comnet System & Services Ltd. v. CCE – (2015) 40 STR 621 (Tri. – Del.)
115. The Tribunal held that the assessee could not be denied of its claim of refund of service tax on export of services since the FIRC clearly specified that the payment was received in convertible foreign exchange which satisfies the conditions prescribed in Rule 3(ii) of the ESR, 2005. Further, it held that since the issue of admissibility of input services such as security and air travel services was not raised in the show cause notice, denial of refund on those grounds was unsustainable.
Sun-Area Real Estate Pvt. Ltd. v. CST – (2015) 39 STR 897 (Tri. – Mum.)
116. The Tribunal held that contribution to expenses could not be deemed to be consideration for any identified service rendered by the assessee, a club, to its members by way of access to the facilities or advantage. However, if the payments were specifically attributable to such facility, advantage or service, the subscription would be taxable. Accordingly, it allowed the refund claim of service tax paid under protest on entrance fees received by the assessee.
Cricket Club of India Ltd. v. CST –  62 taxmann.com 2 (Mumbai – CESTAT)
117. The Tribunal held that where the assessee had paid full service tax on Inland Haulage charges and GTA charges (input services used in exportation of goods), the full amount of service tax was refundable as per Notification No. 17/2009. As regards ocean freight, onward carriage charges and terminal handling charges for delivering goods to the destination of the buyer outside India, it dismissed the contention of the Revenue that these services were availed outside India since the charges would form part of the price of goods in question and the ownership of the goods remained with the assessee till delivery. It also allowed refund on service tax paid on courier charges paid by the supplier of service, recovered from the assessee.
Polyplex Corporation Ltd. v. CCE – (2015) 38 STR 821 (Tri.-Delhi)
118. The Tribunal held that, as per Section 51 of the SEZ Act, the refund claim filed by the assessee could not be rejected where there was a delay in filing of Refund claim owing to delay in obtaining approvals under the SEZ Act.
Mahindra Engineering Services Ltd. v. CCE – (2015) 38 STR 841 (Tri.-Mumbai)
119. The Tribunal held that the assessee was entitled to refund claim of the unutilised CENVAT credit pertaining to service tax on input services used for providing investment advisory services to Greater Pacific Capital LLP, located outside India as it amounted to export of services.
CST v. Greater Pacific Capital Pvt. Ltd. – (2015) 38 STR 656 (Tri.-Mumbai)
120. The Court held that where the assessee wrongly paid service tax on Architectural services provided for the construction of building in Sri Lanka under the Account head “Service Tax” through TR-6 challan meant for payment of service tax, the contention of it to be a deposit was not sustainable and held that refund claims filed beyond the statutory period of limitation was not tenable even if tax was paid under mistake of law.
ACST v. Natraj & Venkat Associates – (2015) 40 STR 31 (Mad.)
121. The Court held that the relevant date for calculating the time limit for grant of refund would be the date of receipt of consideration and not the date of provision of services.
CCCE & ST v. Hyundai Motor India Engg. Pvt. Ltd. – (2015) 39 STR 984 (AP)
122. The Tribunal held that the limitation period for refund claim was to be counted from the date of refund claim filed electronically and not from the physical submission of documents.
The Design Consortium v. CCE – (2015) 40 STR 734 (Tri. – Del.)
123. The Tribunal held that the assessee was not entitled to refund merely upon accumulation, but only after it makes an attempt to utilise the credit for payment of service tax / excise duty. It held that the assessee would qualify for refund on accumulation only in the case of export of services and the inability to utilise the same for its domestic business. Accordingly, it held that there was no time limit to apply for refund claim under Rule 5 of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004.
Affinity Express India Pvt. Ltd. v. CCE – (2015) 40 STR 808 (Tri. – Mum.)
124. The Tribunal held that where the assessee had provided services within the Mangalore Commissionerate but claimed refund of service tax in the Bangalore Commissionerate, the assessee was to approach the Mangalore Commissionerate and that the date of filing refund before the Bangalore Commissionerate was to be taken as the date of filing.
Sahara Power Products v. CCE – (2015) 40 STR 536 (Tri. – Bang.)
125. The Tribunal held that since CBEC Circular No. 120 / 1 / 2010 –ST clarified that CENVAT credit refund of past period in subsequent quarters shall be allowed specifically for 100 per cent exporter of services irrespective of the date of CENVAT credit taken and also since the assessee could not use the credit of input service for the exports, it allowed the refund claim.
Ionnor Solutions Pvt. Ltd. v. CCE & ST – (2015) 39 STR 698 (Tri. – Del.)
126. The Tribunal disallowed the refund claimed by the assessee as the assessee had debited the amount of tax paid to its profit and loss account implying that the burden had been passed onto the customers and it therefore held that the claim was barred by unjust enrichment. It further held that a Chartered Accountant’s certificate stating that the burden was not passed on to the customers was an inadequate argument.
CCE v. Peptech Constructions (2015) 38 STR 639 (Tri.-Del.)
Service of Notice / Order
127. The Court held that communication by speed post was not covered as a mode of service under the Central Excise Act, 1944 prior to amendment with effect from 10-5-2013 and therefore such service was not binding on the assessee and that the proof of services was mandatory for reckoning the period of limitation.
Premier Garment Processing v. CESTAT – (2015) 39 STR 812 (Mad.)
Show Cause Notice
128. The Tribunal held that where no specific classification of taxable service was made in the show cause notice and the assessee provided various services, no demand of service tax could be made as classification of taxable service was required to be specified while demand service tax.
Bombay Intelligence Security (India) Ltd. v. CST – (2015) 40 STR 158 (Tri. – Mum.)
129. The Tribunal held that the taxable event for the levy of service tax is the date of rendition of service and therefore the rate prevalent at the time of provision of service would be the applicable rate irrespective of the rate prevalent at the time of receipt of payment.
CST v. Bagai Construction – 2015-TIOL-2086-CESTAT-Del.
130. The Tribunal held that where the assessee, engaged in carrying out seismic surveys for ONGC did not pay service tax on the services rendered by it as it was beyond the designated areas of the Continental Shelf and Exclusive Economic Zone based on Notification 1 / 2002 which was prevalent at the time of providing services, it could not be made liable to service tax based on Notification No. 21 / 2009 wherein the areas in which it provided services were notified as designated areas as the amendment was a subsequent amendment not being beneficial and therefore could not be held to be retrospective in nature.
CGG Veritas Services Ltd. v. CCE – (2015) 38 STR 1139 (Tri. – Mum.)
131. The Tribunal held that services rendered by a branch to its Head Office could not be considered as taxable service and therefore not liable to service tax.
CCE v. Manugraph India Ltd. – (2015) 38 STR 648 (Tri.-Mumbai)
132. The Tribunal held that were the assessee started paying service tax on the works contract services under the composition scheme and had disclosed the amount of tax paid in its returns but failed to make a specific declaration under Rule 3 of the Works Contract Composition Rules, the substantial benefit could not be denied merely due to procedural deficiency in delay in option for the scheme considering the fact that no format for making the declaration or the authority to whom declaration was to be made was prescribed and that the assessee made adequate disclosures in its return.
ABL Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. v. CCE – (2015) 38 STR 1185 (Tri. – Mum.)
133. The Tribunal held that the charges imposed by the foreign bank on the assessee’s Indian bank for the purpose of making remittances from the assessee’s overseas customers could not be charged under section 66A fo the Act since the foreign bank did not charge the assessee directly but had charged the Indian bank who had recovered the amount from the assessee.
Greenply Industries Ltd. v. CCE (2015) 38 STR 605 (Tri.-Delhi)
134. The Court held that service providers have the right to claim service tax from its customers as nothing in the law provides that the service provider cannot quote a rate which was inclusive of service tax. It observed that the assessee, a contractor quoted its rate knowing fully that it would have to bear the service tax liability and therefore after having paid such service tax could not claim that such liability was to be paid by the customer.
Oil & Natural Gas Corporation Ltd. v. Swapan Kumar Paul – (2015) 39 STR 789 (Tripura)
135. The Court held that since the assessee had obtained due approval from the Approval Committee of the SEZ for list of services for which it claimed exemption as per the relevant Notification which provided ample safeguards to avoid evasion of tax, the denial of authorisation in Form A2 for availing exemption by the Department on the ground of possible tax evasion was not justified.
Sai Wardha Power Co. Ltd. v. UOI – (2015) 39 STR 952 (Bom.)
136. The Tribunal held that merely because the assessee adjusted advance payment of service tax against the subsequent period’s liability without giving intimation to the Superintendent, the adjustment could not be disallowed as it would lead to the unjust enrichment of the Government and also noted the fact that the intimation of adjustment had been made in the ST-3 returns.
Garima Associates v. CC&CE – (2015) 40 STR 247 (Tri. – Mum.)
137. The Tribunal held that marketing services provided by the assessee to a Bank using their publicity material could not be regarded as services provided under the brand name of the Bank. It noted that the assessee was not paying some amount to the Bank for the use of the trade mark but in fact, the Bank was making payments to the assessee for providing the marketing services. Accordingly, it held that the benefit of small scale service provider exemption was available to the assessee.
CCE v. AS Financial – (2015) 60 taxmann.com 203
138. The Tribunal held that the CBEC circular requiring declaration by GTA on consignment note that notification conditions are fulfilled was beyond the requirement of the exemption notification and that CBEC circulars could not restrict or expand the amplitude of an exemption notification nor could they add/subtract conditionsreto/therefrom.
CCE v. Sangam Structural Ltd. – (2015) 39 STR 1034 (Tri.-Del.)