Latest Amendments and Recent News Views & Stories
Brought to you by www.servicetaxonline.com
| | Recent Important Judgement | | STO 2010 CESTAT 176 In The Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, Kolkata Eastern Zonal Bench: Kolkata | Service Tax: Cargo Handling Service: Pre-deposit
Applicants are providing goods, transport agency service within the mining area and loading and un-loading of the coal is incidental to the Service. Revenue is treating the loading and unloading of the coal as provider of cargo handling service. Applicants had a strong case in their favour and the amount already deposited is sufficient for hearing of the Appeal. The pre-deposit of remaining amount of Service Tax and interest and penalties are waived and recovery of the same is stayed. (para 4) ...more | | | | | | STO 2010 CESTAT 175 In The Customs, Excise And Service Tax Appellate Tribunal East Zonal Bench: Kolkata | Service Tax: Dredging Service:
The clarification clearly refers to the inclusive nature of the definition of dredging and states that the activities specified are only indicative and not exhaustive. Therefore, on merits, the activities of the Appellants clearly fall under dredging services, as rightly held by the Commissioner. (para 7.3)
Service Tax: Dredging Service: Tax not payable prior to 16.06.2005:
No demand for Service Tax for the activity undertaken prior to 16.6.05 is liable and for this purpose, the matter has to be gone into afresh. (para 8)
Service Tax: Dredging Service: Abatement of value of Materials:
No segregation of such value. It has also not been pleaded that in respect of the said materials, any Sales Tax has been paid by the Appellants treating them as deemed sales. Under these circumstances, this claim raised for the first time before the Tribunal during arguments, does not deserve to be considered. (para 9)
Service Tax: Dredging Service:
The Appellants have raised separate bills on the customer; merely because the said amount was not paid by the customers as of now, it cannot be held that the service charges collected by them should be treated as cum-tax value. In the given facts and circumstances of the case, the claim of cum-tax benefit is not permissible. (para 10)
Service Tax: Dredging Service: Extended period:
It is not the case that they furnished the details of service charges received for the dredging services in the ST return and claimed that they were not liable to pay Service Tax. It is also not their case that they sought for any Speaking Order on the issue. At any rate, the demand relating to the period from October, 2005 has been raised within the normal period of limitation, as the Show Cause Notice was issued on 14.3.07. For the period prior to October, 2005, the conduct of the assessee as narrated earlier justified the invocation of the extended period of limitation. (para 11)
Service Tax: Dredging Service: Penalty:
Since the Appellants have no reason to entertain the bonafide belief and that they have failed to file returns relating to dredging services undertaken by them, the penalties imposed are also justified. (para 12)l...more | | | | | | | | | | |
.jpg){kind=logo}
No comments:
Post a Comment