In the instant case, Essar Projects Ltd. (Essar) sold the entire business pertaining to their ‘Construction Division’ to Essar Construction (I) Ltd. (the New Company), w.e.f. June 30, 2006 as per ‘Business Transfer Agreement’. The Department contended that amount received by the New Company on account of the services rendered post June 30, 2006, though the entire Service tax liability pertaining to these services had already been discharged by Essar, the New Company is liable to pay Service tax on same. The Department issued Show Cause Notice to the New Company and the demand was confirmed by the Adjudicating authority.
The Hon’ble CESTAT, Ahmedabad, held that as per Rule 2(1)(d)(v) of the Service Tax Rules, if consignor or consignee is one of the specified entities, then person liable to pay Service tax would be person liable to pay freight. Since consignor i.e. EOL was a factory as per Factories Act and a company under Companies Act, GTA service provider i.e., the Appellant was not liable to Service tax.
Refund of Service tax on services not provided cannot be denied on ground that same was not shown as ‘receivable’ in Balance Sheet Radico Khaitan Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Service Tax, Delhi [(2014) 48 taxmann.com 340 (New Delhi – CESTAT)] Radico Khaitan Ltd. (the Appellant) entered into an agreement with Diageo Radico Distrilleries Pvt. Ltd. […]
The Hon’ble High Court relied on the case of State of Gujarat Vs. M.M. Hazi Hasan [AIR 1967 SC 1885] and ordered the Revenue to hand over the exact quantity of the goods seized to the Petitioner as shown in the seizure list or pay equivalent money for the quantity of the seized goods at the present market rate to the Petitioner.
We are sharing with you the recent judicial pronouncement of the Hon’ble Bangalore CESTAT in the case of Apotex Research Pvt. Ltd. & Others Vs. CC, Bangalore-Cus & Others [2014-TIOL-1836-CESTAT-Bang] wherein 56 Appeals were heard together and the Bangalore Bench of the CESTAT passed an interim order on 16 Common/ Legal Issues pertaining to refund
There is no provision in Service tax law for deeming notional interest on security deposit taken as a consideration for leasing of the immovable property. Therefore, in the absence of a specific provision in law there is no scope for adding any notional interest to the value of taxable service rendered.
Shivam Engineering Company Vs. Union of India [2014-TIOL-1563-HC-AHM-CUS] In the instant case, Shivam Engineering Company (the Petitioners) have filed a writ petition before the Hon’ble Ahmadabad High Court requesting to prohibit the Revenue from levying Additional Duty of Excise (CVD) under Section 3(1) of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 (the Customs Tariff) as per the […]
The Finance Act (No.2), 2014 (the Finance Act) has substituted new Section 35F of the Central Excise Act, 1944 (the Excise Act) which is also applicable for Service Tax vide Section 83 of the Finance Act, 1994 and Section 129E of the Customs Act, 1962 (the Customs Act) to prescribe mandatory pre-deposit of 7.5% or […]
Gujarat State Fertilizers and Chemicals Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Vadodara [2014-TIOL-1 729-CESTA T-AHM] Gujarat State Fertilizers and Chemicals Ltd. (the Appellant) has rendered services of transportation of effluent through pipeline or conduit to Heavy Water Project (HWP) for consideration. The Department contended that the Appellant is liable to pay Service tax on the […]
Commissioner of Customs Vs. Apple India Pvt. Ltd. [2014-TIOL-1544-HC-KAR-CUS] In the instant case, Apple India Pvt. Ltd. (the Respondent) filed a refund claim of Rs.5,22,27,424/- of Special Additional Duty (SAD) in terms of the Notification No. 102/2007-Cus.(N.T.) dated September 14, 2007. The authorities rejected the said claim of refund on the grounds that the Respondent […]
