Skip to content


Latest Cases Home > Latest Court: customs excise and service tax appellate tribunal cestat bangalore Page 1 of about 3,733 results (0.231 seconds)

May 21 2014 (TRI)

The Port Conservator Port Office, Uttara Kannada Vs. Commissioner of C ...

Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT

B.S.V. Murthy, J. The appeal has been rejected on the ground that the appellant did not file an application for waiver of pre-deposit of adjudication levies and stay application. In this case, on 23.9.2013 during the personal hearing, it was pointed out by the Commissioner (A) himself that no stay application had been filed and the appellants agreed to do so within 10 days and accordingly submitted the stay application on 27.9.2013, which was received on 30.9.2013. However, the Commissioner (A) passed the impugned order on 15.1.2014 without considering the stay application on the ground that the same has been filed belatedly. Even though learned AR relied upon the decision in the case of Dhampur Sugar Mills: 2005 (191) E.L.T. 521 (Tri.-Del.) and Natural Wood and Veneers Pvt. Ltd.: 2009 (244) E.L.T. 62 (Tri.-Bang.) to submit that the impugned order is correct and needs no interference, we find that both these decisions are not applicable to the facts of this case. In both the cases, no ...

Tag this Judgment!

May 20 2014 (TRI)

Kiran Seban, Kerala Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Customs and Se ...

Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT

B.S.V. Murthy, J. 1. Appellant is a business associate of M/s. Geojit Comtrade Limited (hereinafter referred to as Geojit) which is engaged in the business of future and commodities trading and related activities with corporate membership in National Multi Commodity Exchange of India Limited, Ahmedabad (NMCE), National Commodity and Derivatives Exchange Limited, Mumbai (NCDEX) and Multi Commodity Exchange of India, Mumbai (MCEI). By way of agreement dated 18.12.2008, the appellant was authorized to act as a business associate of Geojit. By way of agreement, the appellant was entrusted to set up and manage an office and to provide commodity futures broking and other related services jointly with M/s. Geojit. All the orders placed by the clients of the appellant were executed by the appellant using the terminal and facilities provided by Geojit, as approved by the regulatory authorities. Apart from usage of the terminal and facilities provided by Geojit, there was no other facility or se...

Tag this Judgment!

May 20 2014 (TRI)

Hicure Pharmaceuticals Pvt. Ltd Karnataka Vs. Commissioner of Central ...

Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT

B.S.V. Murthy, J. 1. Appeal has been rejected on the ground that the same has been filed with a delay of 13 days and no application for condonation of delay had been filed by the appellants. The appellant had been informed on 23.8.2013 that they should file an application for condonation of delay. Unfortunately no such application was filed. The only ground for rejecting the appeal is that no formal condonation application has been filed. The Director himself appeared for personal hearing and unfortunately could not explain the case at all in detail. After spending quite some time, what we found is that the Director did not have sufficient knowledge and this could have been the reason for non-filing of condonation application before the Commissioner (A). We feel that appellant-company should be given another opportunity to understand the legal provisions, meaning of application for condonation of delay and allowed to file an application for condonation of delay giving whatever reasons ...

Tag this Judgment!

May 19 2014 (TRI)

C.C. and C.E. Vs. B.N. Gururaj

Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT

B.S.V. Murthy, J. 1. In all these appeals filed by the Revenue, the issue involved is common and therefore all the appeals are taken up together and a common order is being passed. The matter was heard for quite some time on 8.5.2014 and it was agreed that both the Revenue as well as the respondents will submit service-wise details and their classification. Accordingly the matter was heard once again today. 2. The issue involved in all these cases is accumulated CENVAT credit in respect of input services utilized for output services which are exported. The credit has been denied on the ground that original authority thought that the output services were not at all taxable and therefore input service credits could not have been taken at all. According to Revenue output service was classifiable under Information Technology Service (ITS) whereas it is claimed by the respondents that such services are classifiable under Business Support Service (BSS) or Business Auxiliary Service (BAS). Th...

Tag this Judgment!

May 19 2014 (TRI)

Ba Continuum India Pvt Ltd and Another Vs. Commissioner of Customs, Ce ...

Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT

B.S.V. Murthy, J. Synopsis of facts and important arguments as submitted before us are as under: œTABLE? Facts The Appellant is established as 100% EOU and registered with the Director, STPI, Hyderabad, for export of software. They provide back office services and customer care services to M/s. Bank of America, NA and Bank of America Securities, LLC, both are situated in the United States of America. The appellant is registered within the jurisdiction of the respondent as a provider of output service, which was initially business auxiliary services and subsequently in respect of other taxable services such as support service for business and commerce, information technology, software services, management consultancy, commercial training and coaching, GTA service, Manpower Recruitment and various input services on which it is liable to pay the service tax on reverse charge basis. Such services include BAS, ITSS, Technical Inspection/Certification service, Commercial Training and C...

Tag this Judgment!

May 19 2014 (TRI)

Commissioner of Customs, Andhra Pradesh Vs. M/S. Knoah Solution Pvt Lt ...

Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT

B.S.V. Murthy, J. 1. The miscellaneous application filed by the Revenue for early hearing is dismissed as infructuous as the appeal itself is taken up for final hearing. 2. The issue involved is refund claim of CENVAT Credit paid on input service used in output services which are exempted, as a result of which there was accumulated CENVAT Credit. The total amount of CENVAT credit is Rs.17, 14,716/- and the period involved is October 2006 to June 2007. 3. Heard both the sides.4. The learned Special Counsel on behalf of the Revenue submitted that a view was taken by the original authority that the back office service and call centre services provided by the respondent was to be treated as IT services and on that ground the claim was rejected. After going through the agreement and on a plain reading of Agreement between the foreign principal and respondent, we find that services rendered by the respondent can be considered as a service rendered on behalf of the principal by the appellants...

Tag this Judgment!

May 19 2014 (TRI)

Commissioner of Customs Vs. M/S. Excellence Data Research Hyderabad

Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT

B.S.V. Murthy, J. 1. Respondent is registered for providing taxable service under the category of Business Support Service, online information and database access or retrieval service, maintenance and repair service, development and supply of content service. The respondent filed three different refund claims amounting to Rs.39,25,141/- claiming refund of service tax paid on input services which had accumulated because the same could not be used and the CENVAT credit was pertaining to the period from July 2007 to March 2008. The refund claims were rejected by the original authority on the ground that the respondents output service was information technology service which was excluded from the definition of Business Auxiliary Service and therefore the same was exempt from payment of service tax. Since the output service was exempt from service tax, the benefit of service tax paid on input services was not available as CENVAT credit at all. On this ground, the refund claims were rejected...

Tag this Judgment!

May 19 2014 (TRI)

K.A.S. Prasad, Hyderabad Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Customs a ...

Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT

B.S.V. Murthy, J. 1. When the matter was called today nobody is present on behalf of the appellant. However, a letter of memorandum by the appellant was placed before us, which has no date and it is not know who has submitted and how it has been submitted. 2. In the stay order passed by this Tribunal vide Misc. Order No.25554/2013 dated 8.4.2013, the appellant was directed to deposit an amount of Rs.24 lakhs and report compliance on 1.7.2013 before the Bench. This was not complied with and the appellant had filed a modification application which was dismissed on 27.9.2013 and appellant was directed to report compliance on 29.10.2013. Subsequently on 3.4.2014, when the matter was called, there was a request filed by the appellant that they had filed a writ petition before the Honble High Court of Andhra Pradesh and as per the direction of the Honble High Court of Andhra Pradesh they had filed a civil appeal. Accordingly, the time limit was extended up to 19.5.2014. 3. Today when the mat...

Tag this Judgment!

May 07 2014 (TRI)

Chandramowli Srinivasan, Bangalore and Another Vs. Commissioner of Cen ...

Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT

B.S.V. Murthy, J. 1. After hearing both the sides for some time, we reached the conclusion that the matter is required to be remanded at this stage itself. Accordingly, the requirement of pre-deposit is waived and appeals are taken up for final decision. 2. On the ground that there was no nexus between the input service and the output service and the appellant-company was also engaged in trading activity and therefore entire CENVAT credit was not admissible on input services, proceedings were initiated against the Bangalore unit of the appellant which has culminated in the impugned order wherein CENVAT credit of Rs.7,72,75,750/- availed by them on the basis of invoices issued by input service distributor has been denied and demanded with interest and penalty also has been imposed. 3. The learned counsel submitted that first of all, appellants found that the total amount of service tax availed was less than Rs.7.1 crores and the request for clarification made by them as to how the amoun...

Tag this Judgment!

May 07 2014 (TRI)

M/S. Valsala Travels Pvt. Ltd, Bangalore Vs. Commissioner of Service T ...

Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT

B.S.V. Murthy, J. 1. This appeal has been dismissed on the ground that appellants did not comply with the directions in the stay order which required them to deposit entire amount of service tax along with 50% of the penalty. 2. Learned counsel submits that the order-in-original in this case was passed on 16.8.2010 and the matter was heard once by a Commissioner but no order was passed in the year 2010. Subsequently the matter was fixed for hearing of the appeal and during the hearing the appellants had pleaded financial difficulties. He submits that the Commissioner has observed in para 7 of the impugned order that no financial hardship has been expressed. Learned counsel takes us through the written submissions made by them and shows that indeed there was a submission that appellants had serious financial hardship. However, he also submits that appellants have a prima facie case in view of the fact that in the order-in-original the discussion portion and the entire order-in-original ...

Tag this Judgment!


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //