The Hon’ble CESTAT, Mumbai after considering the provisions of the Standards of Weights and Measures Act, 1976 and Packaged Commodity Rules, 1977 and relying upon the decision in the case of Geoffery Manners & Co. Ltd. Vs. CCE [2006 (204) ELT 403] held that since the toothpaste were supplied as ‘free sample’ and were not meant for retail sale, the provisions of Standards of Weights and Measures Act, 1976 and Packaged Commodity Rules, 1977 would not apply at all and, therefore, the provisions of Section 4A of the Excise Act would also not apply.
Uttam Galva Steels Pvt. Ltd. (the Appellant) was engaged in the manufacturing activity and the final products which were cleared on payment of duty included the products namely ‘H.R. Pickled Oils’ (Pickled Oils) and ‘HR Pickled and oiled coils’ (Pickled Coils).
CESTAT, Delhi held that detection of short payment by the officers prior to filing of ST-3 is a premature detection. The Appellant has given a plausible explanation of short payment by submitting that inasmuch as entries were not made in the computers and the data was yet to be entered, there was no mala fide on their part not to pay Service tax
The Government had constituted Tax Administration Reform Commission (the TARC) headed by Dr. Parthasarathi Shome, on August, 2013, to suggest core reforms to the tax administration set-up in the Country. The TARC has now submitted its Third Report dated December 2, 2014 called the “Third Report of the Tax Administration Reform Commission”. The said Report […]
In the instant case, Internet Computer Centre (the Appellant) availed the benefit of Small Scale Exemption under erstwhile Notification No. 6/2005-ST dated March 1, 2005 (SSI Notification) which was denied by the Lower Authorities on the ground that the services rendered
Kapoor Glass (I) Pvt. Ltd. (the Assessee) cleared the goods from the factory to their customers and recovered cost of insurance from them. In the lorry receipts, the freight was on to pay basis and the buyer of the goods were shown as the consignee.
L’Oreal India (Pvt.) Ltd. (the Petitioner) was engaged in the manufacture of cosmetic products classified into two categories, namely Technical products cleared to Salon/ Beauty Parlour (Technical products) and Retail sale products meant for sale to consumers (Retail sale products).
In the instant case, Sankhla Udyog (the Appellant) was engaged in rendering Repairs and Maintenance Services. A Show Cause Notice was issued to the Appellant by invoking the extended period alleging that there was a difference between the amount shown in their ledger and in the Service Tax Returns (ST-3) on which the Appellant had not paid Service tax and the same was liable to be recovered along with interest and penalty.
Even after amendment made in the definition of ‘Input services’ w.e.f April 1, 2011, Cenvat credit on Outdoor Catering services used in relation to business activities continues to be eligible when the cost is borne by the Company and not recovered from the employees.
V.M. Engg. Works (the Assessee) made late payment of Service tax, consequent to which a Show Cause Notice was issued to the Assessee proposing to impose penalty for late payment of Service tax under Section 76 of the Finance Act, 1994 (the Finance Act).
