Service Tax Judgements

The Hon’ble High Court held that the Exemption Notification is a conditional Notification and Section 5A(1A) of the Excise Act is not applicable to the present case. Therefore, payment of Service tax by job worker i.e. FMGIL and Cenvat credit availme

The Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka relying upon the decision in the case of GSP Infratech Development Ltd. Vs. Union of India and Others [2013-TIOL-399-HC-KAR-ST], held that the words "amount payable by a person" used in Section 87 of the Finance Ac

The Hon’ble High Court directed the Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) to take up the appeal filed by the Petitioner for disposing the same in accordance with law, after affording an opportunity to the Petitioner.

The Hon’ble High Court of Madras held that the issues raised by the Appellants and answered by the Commissioner (Appeals) in their favour has to be considered by the Tribunal on its own merits and there being no finding on the issues in the manner in

In the instant case, the Hon’ble CESTAT disposed off the Stay Application filed by Punjab Chemicals & Corp Protection Ltd. (“the Appellant”) and stayed the entire demand of Service tax amounting to Rs. 35,14,534/-. However, the Appellant was directed

The Hon’ble High Court of Madras upheld the Order of the Hon’ble Tribunal and held that since amendment to the Service Tax Rules have come into effect on August 16, 2002 and it is only by way of amendment the liability of service recipient to pay Ser

The matter raised before the Larger Bench of the Hon’ble CESTAT, Delhi in the instant case is that whether components of a composite transaction amounting to supply of labour/ rendition of service(s), under a Works Contract ought to be classified onl

The Hon’ble CESTAT, Ahmedabad, relying on the decision in the Meghmani Dyes case, held that if prescribed Returns are filed by Assessee giving correct information, then extended period of limitation cannot be invoked. In the instant case also, prescr

The Appellant filed an appeal before the Hon’ble CESTAT, Delhi. The Hon’ble Tribunal vide a non-speaking Order dated February 26, 2013 (“Impugned Order”) ordered pre-deposit of 40% of the demand under Section 35F of the Central Excise Act, 1944 made

The Hon’ble High Court of Chhattisgarh after discussing provisions under Section 67 of the Finance Act, 1994 (“the Finance Act”) read with Rule 5 of the Service Tax (Determination of Value) Rules, 2006 (“the Valuation Rules”), upheld the Order of the