Just a moment...

Top
FeedbackReport
×

By creating an account you can:

Logo TaxTMI
>
Feedback/Report an Error
Email :
Please provide your email address so we can follow up on your feedback.
Category :
Description :
Min 15 characters0/2000
Make Most of Text Search
  1. Checkout this video tutorial: How to search effectively on TaxTMI.
  2. Put words in double quotes for exact word search, eg: "income tax"
  3. Avoid noise words such as : 'and, of, the, a'
  4. Sort by Relevance to get the most relevant document.
  5. Press Enter to add multiple terms/multiple phrases, and then click on Search to Search.
  6. Text Search
  7. The system will try to fetch results that contains ALL your words.
  8. Once you add keywords, you'll see a new 'Search In' filter that makes your results even more precise.
  9. Text Search
Add to...
You have not created any category. Kindly create one to bookmark this item!
Create New Category
Hide
Title :
Description :
❮❮ Hide
Default View
Expand ❯❯
Close ✕
🔎 Case Laws - Adv. Search
TEXT SEARCH:

Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search

Search In:
Main Text + AI Text
  • Main Text
  • Main Text + AI Text
  • AI Text
  • Title Only
  • Head Notes
  • Citation
Party Name: ?
Party name / Appeal No.
Law:
---- All Laws----
  • ---- All Laws----
  • GST
  • Income Tax
  • Benami Property
  • Customs
  • Corporate Laws
  • Securities / SEBI
  • Insolvency & Bankruptcy
  • FEMA
  • Law of Competition
  • PMLA
  • Service Tax
  • Central Excise
  • CST, VAT & Sales Tax
  • Wealth tax
  • Indian Laws
Courts: ?
Select Court or Tribunal
---- All Courts ----
  • ---- All Courts ----
  • Supreme Court - All
  • Supreme Court
  • SC Orders / Highlights
  • High Court
  • Appellate Tribunal
  • Tribunal
  • Appellate authority for Advance Ruling
  • Advance Ruling Authority
  • National Financial Reporting Authority
  • Competition Commission of India
  • ANTI-PROFITEERING AUTHORITY
  • Commission
  • Central Government
  • Board
  • DISTRICT/ SESSIONS Court
  • Commissioner / Appellate Authority
  • Other
Situ: ?
State Name or City name of the Court
Landmark: ?
Where case is referred in other cases
---- All Cases ----
  • ---- All Cases ----
  • Referred in >= 3 Cases
  • Referred in >= 4 Cases
  • Referred in >= 5 Cases
  • Referred in >= 10 Cases
  • Referred in >= 15 Cases
  • Referred in >= 25 Cases
  • Referred in >= 50 Cases
  • Referred in >= 100 Cases
From Date: ?
Date of order
To Date:
TMI Citation:
Year
  • Year
  • 2025
  • 2024
  • 2023
  • 2022
  • 2021
  • 2020
  • 2019
  • 2018
  • 2017
  • 2016
  • 2015
  • 2014
  • 2013
  • 2012
  • 2011
  • 2010
  • 2009
  • 2008
  • 2007
  • 2006
  • 2005
  • 2004
  • 2003
  • 2002
  • 2001
  • 2000
  • 1999
  • 1998
  • 1997
  • 1996
  • 1995
  • 1994
  • 1993
  • 1992
  • 1991
  • 1990
  • 1989
  • 1988
  • 1987
  • 1986
  • 1985
  • 1984
  • 1983
  • 1982
  • 1981
  • 1980
  • 1979
  • 1978
  • 1977
  • 1976
  • 1975
  • 1974
  • 1973
  • 1972
  • 1971
  • 1970
  • 1969
  • 1968
  • 1967
  • 1966
  • 1965
  • 1964
  • 1963
  • 1962
  • 1961
  • 1960
  • 1959
  • 1958
  • 1957
  • 1956
  • 1955
  • 1954
  • 1953
  • 1952
  • 1951
  • 1950
  • 1949
  • 1948
  • 1947
  • 1946
  • 1945
  • 1944
  • 1943
  • 1942
  • 1941
  • 1940
  • 1939
  • 1938
  • 1937
  • 1936
  • 1935
  • 1934
  • 1933
  • 1932
  • 1931
  • 1930
Volume
  • Volume
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7
  • 8
  • 9
  • 10
  • 11
  • 12
TMI
Example : 2024 (6) TMI 204
By Case ID:

When case Id is present, search is done only for this

Sort By: ?
Even if Sort by Date is selected, exact match will be shown on the top.
RelevanceDate
    No Records Found
    ❯❯
    MaximizeMaximizeMaximize
    0 / 200
    Expand Note
    Add to Folder

    No Folders have been created

      +

      Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?

      NOTE:

      Case Laws
      Showing Results for :
      Reset Filters
      Results Found:
      AI TextQuick Glance by AIHeadnote
      No Records Found

      Case Laws

      Back

      All Case Laws

      Showing Results for :
      Reset Filters
      Showing
      Records
      ExpandCollapse
        No Records Found

        Case Laws

        Back

        All Case Laws

        Showing Results for : Reset Filters
        Case ID :

        📋
        Contents
        Note

        Note

        Note

        Bookmark

        print

        Print

        Login to TaxTMI
        Verification Pending

        The Email Id has not been verified. Click on the link we have sent on

        Didn't receive the mail? Resend Mail

        Don't have an account? Register Here

        Tribunal Upholds Commissioner's Order on Service Tax Exemption

        M/s Bank of Maharashtra Versus Commissioner of Customs, Central Excise And Service Tax, Pune (Vice-Versa)

        M/s Bank of Maharashtra Versus Commissioner of Customs, Central Excise And Service Tax, Pune (Vice-Versa) - TMI Issues Involved:
        1. Issuance of corrigendum by the commissioner limiting demands to a period of 5 years.
        2. Treatment of income earned from cash credit, overdraft, and bill discounting as exempted services under Rule 2(e) of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004.
        3. Liability to pay service tax on manpower deputed to the subsidiary (METCO).
        4. Availment of inadmissible credit for input services availed for J&K branches.
        5. Requirement to pay service tax on directors’ sitting fees.
        6. Imposition of penalties where payments were made along with interest before the issuance of the show cause notice.

        Detailed Analysis:

        1. Issuance of Corrigendum by the Commissioner:
        The commissioner issued a corrigendum restricting the demand to a period of 5 years, which was challenged. The tribunal found that the commissioner’s action was merely an arithmetical correction and did not violate any provisions of law. The matter was remanded back to the adjudicating authority to rework the demand, considering the period of 5 years only and to independently analyze the facts to determine the sufficiency of reasons for invoking the extended period.

        2. Treatment of Income as Exempted Services:
        The tribunal examined whether the income earned from cash credit, overdraft, and bill discounting should be regarded as exempted services. It was concluded that the interest earned from advancing loans is to be considered as exempted services under Rule 6(3A)(c) of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004. The tribunal upheld the commissioner’s order, aligning with previous decisions in UCO Bank and HDFC Bank cases, confirming that the interest part is exempted and must be considered for proportionate reversal of CENVAT credit.

        3. Liability to Pay Service Tax on Manpower Deputed to METCO:
        The tribunal referred to its previous decision in the Axis Bank case, where it was held that deputing employees to a subsidiary and getting reimbursed for their salaries does not attract service tax. The tribunal allowed the appeal, confirming that no service tax is leviable on the manpower deputed to METCO as long as only reimbursement of wages was received.

        4. Availment of Inadmissible Credit for J&K Branches:
        The tribunal found that the commissioner’s rejection of the appellant’s claim of reversal of CENVAT credit for J&K branches was not acceptable. The matter was remanded back to the commissioner for re-examination, emphasizing that if the reversal was not timely, interest could be charged.

        5. Requirement to Pay Service Tax on Directors’ Sitting Fees:
        The tribunal noted that the commissioner had confirmed the demand not only on the sitting fees but also on reimbursed expenses, which was incorrect. The matter was remanded back for proper appreciation of the facts, instructing that reimbursed expenses should not be included in the taxable value, in line with the Supreme Court decision in Intercontinental Consultants & Technocrat Pvt. Ltd.

        6. Imposition of Penalties:
        The tribunal observed that the appellants had reversed the amounts along with interest before the issuance of the show cause notice. Considering the interpretative nature of the issues and the appellant being a public sector undertaking, the tribunal found that imposing a 100% penalty was unwarranted. The penalties were restricted to 25%.

        Conclusion:
        The tribunal upheld the commissioner’s order regarding the reversal of credit attributable to exempted services like lending. It ruled that no service tax is payable on manpower deputed to METCO and that reimbursed expenses should not be included in the taxable value for directors’ sitting fees. The tribunal remanded the matter back to the adjudicating authority for re-examination of the reversal of CENVAT credit for J&K branches and reworking the demand considering the period of 5 years. Penalties were restricted to 25% for amounts paid before the issuance of the show cause notice. The appeals were disposed of accordingly.

        Topics

        ActsIncome Tax
        No Records Found