CESTAT set aside the Ex-parte order passed by the Revenue Department confirming the demand of Service tax along with interest and penalty on the cleaning services in respect of non-commercial building or premises.
HC held that, orders denying refund claim to the assessee for accumulated credit of Compensation Cess, where the reason of claim being time barred is absent but certain other reasons have been assigned that are sufficient to enable the assessee to know the cause for rejection of the claim for refund cannot be categorized to be non-speaking. Further, relegated the matter for avail the alternate remedy of appeal
HC held that, detention/seizure of the vehicle and goods without issuing proper notice or detention order by the proper officer is in gross contravention of the statutory provisions.
CESTAT held that, service tax is not payable on reimbursement of expenses as the nature of service should make no difference to the taxability of reimbursement.
CESTAT held that the value of scrap arising during the process of manufacture by the job worker is not included in the value of the goods cleared by the job worker to the principal manufacturer for the purpose of levying excise duty.
Service Tax on the amount of liquidated damages – CESTAT Held that, Service Tax is not payable on liquidated damages collected in the nature of penalty.
No interest and penalty to be imposed if credit is merely availed but not utilised | Section 73 & 74 Interest will be attracted only if wrong/excess ITC availed & utilized
In re MEK Peripherals India Pvt Ltd. (GST AAR Maharashtra) Incentives received for market services within India cannot be considered as trade discount nor export service The AAR, Maharashtra in the matter of M/s. MEK Peripherals India Pvt. Ltd., [Advance Ruling No. GST-ARA-59/2020-21/B-56 dated April 27, 2022] has held that incentives received by the Indian […]
HC Held that, the Revenue Department could not have intercepted or detained the vehicle in the absence of a second e-way bill as the first e-way bill was valid during the interception period.
Advance ruling is not binding on the supplier, and the supplier may not follow the ruling and In such a scenario, the advance ruling loses its relevance and applicability.
