A raid under Section 82 of the Finance Act was carried out in the premises of the Exman Security Services Pvt. Ltd. (the Petitioner) on March 25, 2014. Statement under Section 14 of the Excise Act was recorded of the Managing Director of the Petitioner wherein it was submitted that Service tax liability of the Petitioner exist but amount calculation will be provided later.
In the Union Budget, 2015 vide Notification No. 06/2015-C.E. (N.T.) dated March 1, 2015 (Effective from March 1, 2015), Export goods have been defined by inserting a Clause (1A) in Explanation 1 to Rule 5 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004, which is reproduced as under:
Cenvat credit allowed on civil construction services for construction of factory shed, which is falling under setting up of factory premises- Commissioner of Central Excise, Delhi III, Gurgaon Vs. KML Molding [2015-VIL-171-CESTAT-DEL-CE]
Investigation of the Appellant was initiated on November 26, 2007 by the officers of DGCEI and it was alleged that the financial support given to Appellant by RCM in terms of the Master Service Agreement dated April 10, 2007 (the Agreement) was in the nature of advance for the taxable services rendered or to be rendered by the Appellant to RCM and is required to be set off against the bills that would be raised later by the Appellant on RCM.
Shravan Banarasilal Jejani (the Appellant) is the owner of the residential flats sold to them by the builder who paid Service tax on the residential flats. However, in terms of the Circular No. 108/2/2009-ST dated January 29, 2009 (the Circular), there was no Service tax liability on sale of the residential flats on the Appellant.
CA Bimal Jain The Union Budget, 2015 has proposed an increase in the rate of Service tax from 12.36% to flat 14% with abolishment of Education cess and Secondary & Higher Secondary Education cess. Further pursuing with Mr. Narendra Modi’s Dream of Swachh Bharat, a new Chapter VI has been inserted in the Finance Bill, 2015 […]
Publication of prospectus and making it available to students is ancillary activity to the main and predominant object to impart education and thus Institutions are not ‘dealer’ under VAT. Commercial Taxes Officer Vs. Banasthali Vidyapith [2015 (4) TMI 393 – RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT]
In the instant case, Bhimli Unit of Alsa Marine And Harvests Ltd. (the Respondent) is a 100 % Export Oriented Undertaking (EOU) engaged in the process of freezing and export of marine products as per the permission accorded by the Department of Industrial Development. The Respondent imported goods without payment of Customs duty and procured indigenous goods without payment of Central Excise duty seeking exemption under Notification No. 13/81 dated February 9, 1981
Redicura Pharmaceuticals Pvt. Ltd. (the Appellant) is a manufacturer of P&P medicines chargeable to Central Excise duty. For the period April 1, 2003 to October 31, 2003 (impugned period), the Appellant was availing SSI Exemption under Notification No. 9/03-CE dated March 1, 2003 (SSI Notification).
Since, the dispute arose as to whether the Respondent was entitled for concessional rate of duty or not, the Respondent paid normal rate of 15% ad valorem duty and sought for refund of the extra duty paid amounting to Rs. 27,66,970/-.
