TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (3) TMI 570
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... in Data Processing Services to State Electricity Boards such as Punjab State Power Corporation, Dakshin Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam, Uttar Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam, U.T Chandigarh. In terms of the Agreements, the appellant was engaged in printing the electricity bills for the electricity authorities at the rates agreed for at the rate of 9% over the expenses and service tax. Stationary was either supplied by the authorities or the expenses incurred for the same was reimbursed to the appellant; the Revenue issued a show cause notice dated 04.04.2012 covering the period 01.10.2006 to 31.12.2011 alleging that the expenses incurred for the stationary, reimbursed by the electricity authorities, should be included in the assessable value of the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ervice tax. She fairly submits that though the appellants have paid service tax under a mistaken notion, they are not agitating the issue on the taxability. As the tax itself was not payable, any addition to the same has no relevance. She relies on the following cases: * Intercontinental Consultants & Technocrats Pvt. Ltd. vs. Union of India 2013 (29) S.T.R. 9 (Del.) [affirmed by Supreme Court in Union of India and Anr. vs. M/s. Intercontinental Consultants and Technocrats Pvt. Ltd. 2018 (10) G.S.T.L. 401 (S.C.)]. * Commissioner of CGST, Delhi South vs. Boeing India Defense Pvt. Ltd., 2024 (388) E.L.T. 37 (S.C.) * Coca Cola India Inc vs. Commissioner of Service Tax, Delhi, Final Order No. 60586/2024 dated 18.10.2024-CESTAT Chandigarh.....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....CE & ST, Kolhapur, Final Order No. A/88250/2018, dated 20.12.2018-CESTAT Mumbai * Commissioner of Service Tax v Bhayana Builders Pvt. Ltd. 2018(10) G.S.T.L 118 (SC) * Wipro Ge Medical Systems Pvt. Ltd. vs. Commr. Of S.T. Bangalore, 2009 (14) S.T.R. 43 (Tri.-Bang.) upheld by the Supreme Court in 2012 (28) S.T.R. J44 (S.C). * Safety Retreading Company (P) Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Salem, M/s Tyresoles India Private Limited vs. The Commissioner of Central Excise, Goa and M/s Laxmi Tyres vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Pune, 2017 (48) S.T.R. 97 (SC) * State of Gujarat vs. Bharat Pest Control, 2018 (13) G.S.T.L. 401 (S.C.) * Agrawal Colour Advance Photo System vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, 2020 (38) G. S. T. L....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ction 67 of the Act permits the subordinate legislation to be enacted in the said manner, as done by Rule 5. As noted above, prior to April 19, 2006, i.e., in the absence of any such Rule, the valuation was to be done as per the provisions of Section 67 of the Act. 22. Section 66 of the Act is the charging Section which reads as under: "there shall be levy of tax (hereinafter referred to as the service tax) @ 12% of the value of taxable services referred to in sub-clauses of Section 65 and collected in such manner as may be prescribed." 23. Obviously, this Section refers to service tax, i.e., in respect of those services which are taxable and specifically referred to in various sub-clauses of Section 65. Further, it also specifically ....