Recently, TRU has issued Circular No. 166/1/2013 dated January 1, 2013 which is summarised for your easy digest: This Circular is being issued upon representation made by life insurance companies that in terms of the practice followed, reminder notices/letters are being issued to the policy holders to pay renewal premiums. Such reminder notices only solicit […]
CBEC has issued its first Central Excise Circular No. 967/01/2013 – CX, dated January 01, 2013 on eve of New Year 2013, for recovery of confirmed demands during pendency of Stay applications. The Circular has rescinded seven previous circulars on the subject matter. The said Circular has brought about a significant shift in the timing of recovery of confirmed demands, where the stay applications are not disposed off by the appellate authorities, within a period of 30 days of filing thereof.
The Petitioner Company had entered into Franchisee Agreements with several companies, situated inside and outside Kerala and also abroad, as per which, on mutually agreed terms and conditions, these companies were allowed to use the Trademark owned by the petitioner.
Whether reimbursement of expenses includible in gross consideration for the chargeability of Service Tax? Whether Rule 5(1) of Service Tax (Determination of Value) Rules is ultra vires Sections 66 and 67 of Finance Act, 1994?
We are sharing with you FAQ on Works Contract Composition scheme w.e.f 1st July, 2012 and analysis of an important recent judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of M/s Nagarjuna Construction Company Ltd. Versus Government of India & ANR on the following issue:-
Whether the Cenvat credit can be denied on the ground that the invoice number was handwritten or rubber stamped but not printed on invoice? The appellants are in appeal against the impugned orders wherein input credit taken by them on duty paid invoice was denied only on the basis that the invoice number was handwritten or rubber stamped but not printed.A show-cause notice was issued and demands were confirmed by both the lower authorities. Aggrieved from the said orders, an appeal was filed before the CESTAT-Mumbai.
Issue: Whether there is need for one to one co-relation of CENVAT credit availed on input services towards payment of output services? Facts: The appellants are manufacturer of transmission towers and also providing services of erection, commissioning & installation, management, maintenance or repair, testing, inspection of these towers etc. for their activity of manufacturing and providing the above services, the appellants availed CENVAT credit on inputs, capital goods and input services.
In the present case, during the course of scrutiny of the records of M/s Shah Precicast (P) Ltd. (Respondent), it was found that they had taken Cenvat credit on the strength of the Xerox copy of the bill of entry. Therefore, the Revenue issued a show-cause notice for wrong availment of Cenvat credit on the strength of Xerox copy of bill of entry and proposing penalty for suppression of facts with an intention to evade duty.
With effect from 1 July, 2012, there are certain services on which 100% service tax needs to be paid by Service Recipient and there is partial reverse charge wherein both service provider and service recipient needs to pay service tax as per defined percentage as mentioned in the table below:-
TRU has issued a Circular No. 164/15/2012-ST dated August 28, 2012 clarifying certain issues in relation to levy of service tax on certain vocational education/training/ skill development courses (VEC) offered by the Government (Central Government or State Government) or local authority themselves or by an entity independently established by the Government under the law, as a society or any other similar body.
