Shukla & Brothers (the Appellant) is a proprietorship firm registered under Service tax under the category of ‘Construction Work’. However, under some confusion and misguidance, the Appellant was issued registration under ST-2 in the category of ‘Civil Structure Construction Work’. The Appellant claimed that the services provided are of maintenance/ sanitation services provided at factory premises of clients, which does not fall within the Service tax net.
The fact that NECL could seek refund of the tax paid as per the State Government Order G.O.Ms. No. 609 dated May 29, 2006, issued in terms of Section 15(1) of the AP VAT Act, will not absolve KPCL of their statutory obligation to deduct TDS;
In the present case, a Thailand based Company, Italian Thai Development Public Company Limited and an Indian Public Company, ITD Cementation India Limited having its place of business in Salt Lake City, Kolkata decided to establish a Joint Venture Organisation – ITD-ITD CEM JV.
The Ministry of Corporate Affairs vide Notification dated February 16, 2015 has issued the Companies (Indian Accounting Standards) Rules, 2015, thereby notifying Roadmap for applicability of Indian Accounting Standards (Ind AS) for compliance by the class of companies specified in the said Rules. Following companies shall comply with the Ind AS for the accounting periods […]
Vibha Publications Pvt. Ltd. (Appellant) was engaged in job work of printing material. In the printing process, the plates, chemicals and ink (Impugned Goods) were consumed. The Revenue contended that the value of Impugned Goods consumed in printing process is exigible to Sales tax.
BRG Iron & Steel Co. (P.) Ltd. (the Petitioner) is a two star export house status holder. The Additional DGFT vide letter dated May 31, 2013 informed that the Petitioner entitlement under the Advance Authorization dated May 9, 2012, was limited to a sum of Rs. 38,83,52,050/- instead of Rs. 77,03,73,810/-.
Devki Nandan J Gupta (the Appellant) filed two SAD Refund claims of Rs. 21,92,938/- and Rs. 6,05,866/- on May 6, 2013 (Refund Claim 1) and May 24, 2013 (Refund Claim 2) respectively in terms of Notification No. 102/2007-Cus dated September 14, 2007 (the Notification).
The Hon’ble CESTAT, Mumbai held that for no reason, the Revenue has retained the pre-deposit amount of the Appellants for more than 2 years after passing of the Order. Further, the Revenue neither filed an appeal against the Order nor obtained any stay, therefore, it is clear case of harassment to the Appellants that the legitimate claim of the Appellants has not been granted.
In the instant case, the Hon’ble CESTAT, Kolkata vide its Order dated April 30, 2013 directed the Ess Dee Aluminium Ltd. (the Appellant) to make pre-deposit of 25% of the Cenvat Credit involved in the case within a period of eight weeks and report compliance on July 15, 2013.
In the instant case, Jubiliant Engineering (the Appellant) was 100% Export Oriented Units (EOU) engaged in manufacturing of valve assemblies falling under the Chapter 8481 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. Though the Appellant was not required to pay duty on the export goods
