Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 7 of 7 (0.27 seconds)
M/S. Dewsoft Overseas Pvt. Ltd vs Commissioner Of Service Tax on 2 August, 2016 cites

Great Lakes Institute Of Management ... vs Cst on 2 January, 2008

The present Misc application stand filed for rectification of mistake having occurred in Final Order No. ST/53952/2015-CU (DB) dated 29.10.15 vide which the appellants appeal was rejected on merits by following the Larger Bench decision of the Tribunal in the case of Great Lakes Institute of Management Ltd. vs. CST, Chennai reported as [2013 (32) STR 305]. It is seen that the appellant was also one of the parties before the Larger Bench decision of the Tribunal. The issue involved is as to whether online educational service being provided by the appellant would be taxable under the category Commercial training or coaching service or not. The Larger Bench of the Tribunal has held such services to be taxable under the category of Commercial training or coaching service and the appeals were remitted to the regular Benches for decision.
Customs, Excise and Gold Tribunal - Tamil Nadu Cites 19 - Cited by 9 - Full Document

Honda Siel Power Products Ltd vs Commissioner Of Income Tax, Delhi on 26 November, 2007

The Honble Supreme Court in the case of Honda Siel Power Products Ltd. vs Commissioner of Income Tax, New Delhi [2008 (221) ELT 11 (SC]) has observed that if prejudice had resulted to the party, which prejudice is attributable to the Tribunals mistake, error or omission and which error is a manifest error, then the Tribunal would be justified in rectifying this mistake.
Supreme Court of India Cites 9 - Cited by 258 - Full Document

M/S. Kisan Cooperative Sugar Factory ... vs C.C.E., Meerut-I on 3 June, 2013

8. It is seen that a search was conducted in the appellants premises on 6.10.03 and on the same basis, the earlier show cause notice was issued on 24.8.2004. As such, it can be safely concluded that Revenue was aware of entire activity/ service of the appellant company provided by them, in which case no allegation of suppression or mis-statement with an intent to evade payment of service tax can be attributable to the assessee. When the earlier show cause notice was issued on 24.8.2004 involving the same activities, it is not understood as to why there is delay for issuing present show cause notice dated 10.7.2008 in respect of same activities. The Honble Supreme Court in the case of Nizam Sugar Factory vs. CCE [2006 (197) ELT 465 (SC)] has held that where the first show cause notice stand issued, the second show cause notice cannot be issued in respect of the same set of allegations, by invoking the longer period of limitation. As such, we are of the view that extended period would not be available to the Revenue for raising the demand. The limitation aspect can be viewed from another angle. Admittedly, during the relevant period, there was disputes going on for the correct classification of appellants activity. As there were contra decisions by the Tribunal, the matter was ultimately placed before the Larger Bench, which ruled against the assessee. In such a scenario, the question as to whether any malafide can be attributed to the assessee or not stand answered by various decisions by the Higher Courts. The Honble Supreme Court in the case of Continental Joint Venture has observed that there are varying, different views held during the relevant period, and the issue is finally decided by a Larger Bench, the assessee cannot be held guilty for any malafide or mis-statement with an intent to evade payment of duty. In the present case, when the Revenue itself was not clear about the classification of the appellants activity and infact proposed the classification, in the show cause notice under the category of online information and data base access or retrieval service. Inasmuch as the issue was not free from doubt and was not settled, any malafide cannot be attributed to the assessee, so as to invoke the longer period of limitation. Accordingly, we hold that the demand having being raised by invoking the extended period, is not justifiable. For the same reason, the penalty imposed upon the appellant would not stand. Accordingly, the impugned order is set aside and appeal is allowed on the point of limitation.
Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal Cites 9 - Cited by 55 - Full Document

Cce, Chennai vs M/S. Life Style International Pvt. Ltd on 7 September, 2010

The Honble Bombay High Court in the case of CCE, Mumbai vs. NTB International Pvt. Ltd. [2014 (302) ELT 481 (Bom]) has also held to the same effect that issue of limitation having been raised, and not considered while passing the Final Order amounts to a mistake, thus falling within the provisions of Section 35 C (2) of the Central Excise Act, 1994, requiring rectification.
Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal Cites 0 - Cited by 1 - Full Document
1