1

Service Tax - 2008 - TMI - 4014 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI

Penalty enhanced by comm. (A) u/s 76 in revision order - once the order of the Assistant Commissioner, which has been revised, no longer existed but had merged with the order of the Commissioner (Appeals), it was not permissible in law for the Commissioner to pass the present order in revision

2

Service Tax - 2008 - TMI - 4013 - CESTAT, CHENNAI

Import of services - assessee is receiving patented service "Total Productive Maintenance" (TPM) from Japanese co. to enhance the productivity of an establishment - original authority demanded service tax from foreign service provider & Indian service reciepient covering TPM came under the category of Management Consultancy service - Intellectual Property became a taxable service much after the material period, so OIO is set aside because both parties are different legal entities

3

Service Tax - 2008 - TMI - 4012 - CESTAT MUMBAI

Output catering services provided in the factory - catering/canteen services are neither used in or in relation to the manufacture or clearance of final products nor can it be said to be an activity relating to business - providing canteen in factory doesn't relates to business activity but is in the nature of welfare activity - finding of the Commissioner (Appeals) that catering/canteen services are covered under the definition of input services for cenvat credit, is set aside

4

Service Tax - 2008 - TMI - 4011 - CESTAT, MUMBAI

Penalty on State Finance Corporation providing loans to the small industrial enterprises and enterprises carrying on other economic activities for starting, running, expanding and modernizing - On being pointed out, appellant discharged the entire Service Tax liability along with interest before the issuance of show cause notice - Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, provisions of Section 80 of the Finance Act can be invoked and penalty imposed is liable to be set aside

5

Service Tax - 2008 - TMI - 4010 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI

Demand, interest & penalty of equal amount imposed u/r 6 of service tax credit rules on the ground that, inadmissible credit was taken on bills issued in name of the proprietor for telephone installed at her residential address and other bills, which didn't exist - Service Tax would be admissible on telephone installed at business premises & not at residence - however, since Tax held to be inadmissible is a little over Rs. 2,000, penalty is reduced from 5,961 to 2,000 - appeal partly allowed