Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 11 (0.17 seconds)
4. Whether Order Is To Be Circulated To ... vs M/S Vipra Enterprises on 29 November, 2013 cites

Garden Cotton Yarns Ltd., Garden Silk ... vs Commissioner Of Central Excise & ... on 13 February, 2001

4. Heard both sides and perused the case records. Appellant has not contested the issue on merits but has contested the demand on the grounds that extended period cannot be invoked in the present proceedings, because there was a bonafide view, as per CBEC circular and various judicial pronouncements that the word commercial concern did not include the services provided by the individuals or proprietary concern. The word commercial concern under Section 65(105)(zzb) of Finance Act, 1994 was substituted with the word Any person with effect from 01.05.2006. Appellant started paying Service Tax after availing the admissible value based exemption. Even services rendered prior to 01.05.2008 and amount received after 01.05.2006 was not required to be charged to Service Tax. Under the above facts and circumstances, no suppression or mis-statement with intention to evade payment of Service Tax can be attributed on the part of the appellant. Under similar circumstances, it has been held by CESTAT and Gujarat High Court in the case of Triveni Engg. Works Ltd Vs CCE Allahabad (supra), Garden Silk Mills Ltd. Vs. CCE Surat-I (supra) and CCE Surat-I Vs. Garden Silk Mills (supra) that the extended period cannot be invoked.
Customs, Excise and Gold Tribunal - Mumbai Cites 3 - Cited by 16 - Full Document

M/S. Triveni Engg. & Inds. Ltd vs Cce, Allahabad on 23 April, 2012

4. Heard both sides and perused the case records. Appellant has not contested the issue on merits but has contested the demand on the grounds that extended period cannot be invoked in the present proceedings, because there was a bonafide view, as per CBEC circular and various judicial pronouncements that the word commercial concern did not include the services provided by the individuals or proprietary concern. The word commercial concern under Section 65(105)(zzb) of Finance Act, 1994 was substituted with the word Any person with effect from 01.05.2006. Appellant started paying Service Tax after availing the admissible value based exemption. Even services rendered prior to 01.05.2008 and amount received after 01.05.2006 was not required to be charged to Service Tax. Under the above facts and circumstances, no suppression or mis-statement with intention to evade payment of Service Tax can be attributed on the part of the appellant. Under similar circumstances, it has been held by CESTAT and Gujarat High Court in the case of Triveni Engg. Works Ltd Vs CCE Allahabad (supra), Garden Silk Mills Ltd. Vs. CCE Surat-I (supra) and CCE Surat-I Vs. Garden Silk Mills (supra) that the extended period cannot be invoked.
Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal Cites 3 - Cited by 2 - Full Document

Cce, Raipur vs M/S S.R. Ingot Pvt. Ltd on 10 January, 2012

R.S. Financial Services (supra) and Infinity Credit Vs. CCE Jaipur (supra), therefore, extended period cannot be invoked for demanding Service Tax as there is no mis-statement / suppression with intention to evade Service Tax on the part of the appellant. That the show cause notice has been issued on 24.09.2009 for the period 01.04.2004 to 31.03.2008 which is clearly time barred in view of the following case-laws:-
Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal Cites 2 - Cited by 2 - Full Document

Infinity Credit vs Cce on 30 October, 2007

R.S. Financial Services (supra) and Infinity Credit Vs. CCE Jaipur (supra), therefore, extended period cannot be invoked for demanding Service Tax as there is no mis-statement / suppression with intention to evade Service Tax on the part of the appellant. That the show cause notice has been issued on 24.09.2009 for the period 01.04.2004 to 31.03.2008 which is clearly time barred in view of the following case-laws:-
Customs, Excise and Gold Tribunal - Delhi Cites 1 - Cited by 6 - Full Document

Commissioner Of Customs And Central ... vs M/S Kalpana Silk Mills on 17 August, 2001

4. Heard both sides and perused the case records. Appellant has not contested the issue on merits but has contested the demand on the grounds that extended period cannot be invoked in the present proceedings, because there was a bonafide view, as per CBEC circular and various judicial pronouncements that the word commercial concern did not include the services provided by the individuals or proprietary concern. The word commercial concern under Section 65(105)(zzb) of Finance Act, 1994 was substituted with the word Any person with effect from 01.05.2006. Appellant started paying Service Tax after availing the admissible value based exemption. Even services rendered prior to 01.05.2008 and amount received after 01.05.2006 was not required to be charged to Service Tax. Under the above facts and circumstances, no suppression or mis-statement with intention to evade payment of Service Tax can be attributed on the part of the appellant. Under similar circumstances, it has been held by CESTAT and Gujarat High Court in the case of Triveni Engg. Works Ltd Vs CCE Allahabad (supra), Garden Silk Mills Ltd. Vs. CCE Surat-I (supra) and CCE Surat-I Vs. Garden Silk Mills (supra) that the extended period cannot be invoked.
Customs, Excise and Gold Tribunal - Mumbai Cites 5 - Cited by 21 - Full Document
1   2 Next