Bharti Airtel Ltd. (the Appellant)is engaged in the business of providing cellular services. The issue involved is admissibility of Cenvat credit on inputs, capital goods and input services used in the erection of transmission towers and shelters spread all over the country far from the office premises of the Appellant.
In the instant case, Jyotsana D. Patel (the Appellant) purchased a residential unit from a builder, on which the builder had collected Service tax and deposited the same with the Department. As there is no levy of Service tax on residential unit as held by the Hon’ble High Court
Fashion Suitings Private Limited (the Petitioner) received a Demand Notice dated October 8, 2013 for the payment of Service tax amounting to Rs 15,78,40,282/- with interest and penalty amounting to Rs. 17,08,00,086/- against the Order-in-Original dated October 26, 2012 during the pendency of Stay application before the Hon’ble Tribunal.
Ortiker India P. Ltd. (the Appellant or the Company) imported clamps from the related supplier outside India. The transactions were examined on arms length basis and the SVB branch vide order dated February 6, 2009 held that the transaction value has not been influenced
Anand Decors and Others (the Appellants) were manufacturing certain commodities and were registered dealers under the Delhi Value Added Tax Act, 2004 (DVAT Act).The Appellants purchased motor vehicles/cars,paid Sales tax/ VAT but did not avail input tax credit thereon under DVAT Act.
Nokia India Pvt. Ltd. (the Assessee) is a dealer registered under the Punjab Value Added Tax Act, 2005 (the Punjab VAT) engaged in selling mobile phones along with battery chargers and charges VAT at concessional rate of 4% on the sale value of battery chargers.
DCW Limited(“the Assessee”)was covered by Notification No. 96/2004-Customs dated September 17,2004passed in exercise of powers under Section 25(1) of the Customs Act, 1962 granting exemption of Basic Customs Duty subject to debit of the DEPB Licence.
In the instant case, A. Vairavel (the Assessee) used dyes and chemicals in execution of works contract of dyeing. The Department argued thatthe said transaction involvestransfer of property involved in the use of dyes and chemicals used in works contract of dyeing and hence assessable
The Revenue alleged that the exemption availed was wrong as the impugned goods were not classifiable under Chapter heading specified in the Exemption Notification. Therefore, proceedings were initiated against the Appellant demanding differential Customs duty of Rs. 1,48,92,523/-.
Corrigendum is issued for the correction of error or omissions in the original document, which relates back to the date of initial authoring for the reason that correction means whatever written was not correct or there was some mistake which need be corrected.
