I.  Today's Topline News :   

1. Economic Survey 2011 - 12  (Click for detail)

2. Rail Budget 2012-13: Highlights  (Click for detail)

3. ST Cir. No. 153 - Allocation of work relating to  Service Tax procedures to the Service Tax wing of the CBEC  (Click for detail)

4. Central Excise Notification No. 2 - CENVAT CREDIT (Second Amendment) Rules, 2012 – Substitution of Rule 12AA  (Click for detail)

5. Verification Status November - 2011 Examinations - (15-03-2012)  (Click for detail)

6. E-courts to hear tax cases via webcast  (Click for detail)

   

II.  Useful Case laws on Service Tax:

1.   LANCO INFRATECH LTD. Versus CESTAT, BANGALORE (HC ANDHRA PRADESH), Writ Petition No. 4262 of 2011, decided on 28-2-2011

Brief fact of the case:

I. The appellant/assessee availed the benefit under the Works Contracts Composition Scheme in respect of contracts entered into prior to 1-6-2007.

II. The respondent/department issued show cause notice proposing service tax, interest and penalty on the ground that the petitioner was not eligible to avail the benefit under the Composition Scheme.

III. Being aggrieved, the petitioner went in appeal under Section 35B of the Central Excise Act, 1944 (the Act). The petitioner also moved an interlocutory application seeking waiver of pre-deposit and stay of recovery of service tax and penalty.

IV. By the impugned order the learned CESTAT, permitted waiver of pre-deposit and stay of recovery on condition of the petitioner depositing Rs. 2.66 crores.

Held:

HC held that the impugned order does not suffer from any error much less grave error apparent on the face of the record. We are not, therefore, inclined to interfere with the well-considered order of the learned CESTAT.

(Please click here for judgment)

 

2.  SAP LABS INDIA PVT. LTD. Versus COMMISSIONER OF C. EX., BANGALORE (CESTAT BANGALORE), Final Order No. 30/2011, dated 5-1-2011 in Appeal No. ST/169/2009 (In favour of Revenue)

Brief fact of the case:

I. The appellant/assessee herein filed a refund application with the authorities on the ground that the service tax paid by them should not have been paid.

II. The adjudicating authority after following the Principles of natural justice, rejected the refund claim on various grounds, including the ground of unjust enrichment.

Held:

Despite given a chance, the appellants have not produced any record or evidence to indicate that they have not passed on the element of service tax. In the absence of any such evidence, I find that the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) is correct and legal and does not suffer from any infirmity. The appeal is rejected.

(Please click here for judgment)

   

3.  [ Contribution by  CA Puneet Goyal, and contributor is available at email-id: capuneetgoyal.delhi@gmail.com ]

An Article - COMPREHENSIVE ANALYSIS OF WORKS CONTRACT SERVICE

(Please click here for detail)  

    

Key of Success :

"Successful people don't relax on chair,
they feel relaxed with their work as worship,
they sleep with their plans and dreams
and wake up with a commitment"

  

Thanks for your valuable time

   

"Voice of CA"  

  
CA. Sanjay Kumar Agarwal
Founder - Voice of CA 
Mob : 9811080342, agarwal.s.ca@gmail.com      
   
CA. Sidharth Jain, Co-Moderator
sidhjasso@yahoo.com 
  
CA. Mukesh K Bansal, Co-Moderator-FEMA 
mukbansal80@gmail.com 

CA. Avinash Gupta, Co-Moderator-International Taxation 
caavinashgupta@gmail.com