TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Appellant's non-appearance results in upheld tax demand & penalty imposition</h1> <h3>Chandra Lubricare Versus Commissioner of Central Excise, Madurai</h3> Chandra Lubricare Versus Commissioner of Central Excise, Madurai - TMI Issues Involved:1. Failure of the appellant to appear for the hearing and lack of fresh vakalat filed.2. Taxability of service tax under the category of Clearing & Forwarding services for VSAT Allowances & Delivery Charges.3. Confirmation of demand, penalty imposition, and rejection of appeal by the Commissioner (Appeals).Issue 1: Failure to Appear for HearingThe appellant failed to appear for the hearing despite multiple adjournments and lack of instructions from the client. The advocate withdrew due to no instructions, leading to an ex-parte disposal of the appeal based on the records submitted.Issue 2: Taxability of Service TaxThe case involved the appellant rendering services as the operator of customer care to a company and being registered for service tax under Clearing & Forwarding services. The dispute centered around the payment of service tax amounting to Rs. 41,244 for VSAT Allowances & Delivery Charges claimed from the client. The adjudicating authority confirmed the demand, appropriated the amount already paid, and imposed penalties under various sections of the Finance Act. The Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the decision, leading to the present appeal.Issue 3: Confirmation of Demand and Penalty ImpositionThe Legal Advisor reiterated the findings of the adjudication order and the Commissioner (Appeals) order, emphasizing that the deductions claimed by the appellant were not reimbursable and therefore liable for service tax. The Tribunal examined the grounds of appeal, finding that the functions of the appellant made them liable for service tax on the gross amount received from the client. Relying on previous decisions and court rulings, including the Supreme Court, the Tribunal upheld the demand, stating that the contract's primary objective determined the tax liability, and vivisection of the amount for tax purposes was not permissible. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed, and the impugned order was upheld.This detailed analysis of the judgment showcases the issues involved, the arguments presented, and the Tribunal's reasoning leading to the final decision.
TaxTMI 