| | | Recent Important Judgement | | STO 2010 CESTAT 310 | Service Tax : Section 66A: Import of Services : Services received from abroad Liability to pay tax only from 18.04.2006 :
The demand of the service tax prior to 18/4/2006 could not be raised on them as the ratio of the judgment of the Hon'ble High Court Judicature at Mumbai in the case of Indian National Shipowners Association (supra) is in their favour. In view of the law settled, the impugned order is not sustainable and hence, set aside and the appeal is allowed with consequential relief, if any. (para 8,9)...more | | | | | | STO 2010 CESTAT 311 | SService Tax: Security Agency Services: Tax paid before issue of Show Cause Notice: Penalty revised during revisionary proceedings by Commissioner :
The Assistant Commissioner did not find fraud, suppression of facts, willful mis-statement, etc. with intend to evade payment of the impugned tax on the part of the appellant. In the circumstances, it cannot be held that the penalties imposed by the Assistant Commissioner were not adequate and proportionate to the gravity of the offence committed by the appellants. Enhancing of penalty by the Commissioner in revisionary proceedings is not sustainable. The impugned order is set aside and the order of the Original Authority is restored. (para 5,9)...more | | | | | | STO 2010 CESTAT 312 | Service Tax: Consulting Engineers Service: Tax paid in pursuance of Audit: Refund: Bar of limitation :
he amount involved was a deposit. it did not acquire the character of service tax. The impugned order was passed in favour of the assessee beyond the period of limitation to claim refund from the date of payment of the amount. The appellant could not have claimed refund within the prescribed period of limitation. The appellant is entitled to relief consequent to the impugned order holding that it was not liable to pay service tax found due from it by the Assistant Commissioner. The appeal is allowed. (para 5)...more | | | | | | | |
No comments:
Post a Comment