All CESTAT

No Service Tax on Commercial Construction Service by an Individual prior to 01.05.2006

Shri Bakthiyar Ahmed Vs CCE & ST (CESTAT Chennai)

The present appeal challenges the Order-in-Appeal No.8/2010 dated 24.02.2010. The demand covered the period 2004-05 to 2006-07. The appellant was engaged in providing Construction Service and Commercial or Industrial Construction service...

Read More

Imposition of penalty not justified in absence of motive to mis-declare goods

M/s. Regal Alloys Pvt. Limited Vs Commissioner of Customs (Cestat Chandigarh)

All the three appeals are arising out of the same impugned order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) and as such, are being disposed of by a common order....

Read More

Renting of Immovable Property: Service tax not Leviable on One-Time Non-Refundable Deposit

Kagal Nagar Parishad Vs Commissioner of Central Excise (CESTAT Mumbai)

Kagal Nagar Parishad Vs Commissioner of Central Excise (CESTAT Mumbai) Revenue sought to tax the one time premium deposit, which is not refundable under the head of renting of immovable property service considering the same as rent. We find that there is a separate charge for the rent, which alone is taxable, the onetime premium […...

Read More

Service Tax not leviable on Taxes/Toll collected-on behalf of Government

Mateshwari Indrani Contractors Pvt Ltd Vs C.C.E. & S.T. (CESTAT Delhi)

The present appeal challenges the Order-in-Original No. 63/2013- 14 dated 02/09/2013 and covers the period of dispute April, 2007 to March, 2012. The appellant is engaged as a contractor on behalf of the Government Departments to collect sales tax, royalty and toll tax. The appellant participated in the bids floated by National Highways A...

Read More

No Penalty can be levied for delayed filing of E-Returns If Manual Returns filed within Time

M/s. Ravel Electronics Pvt. Ltd. Vs CCE (CESTAT Chennai)

It is the case of the appellant that it did file its monthly ER-1 returns manually, without any delay but the respondent without verifying the same has imposed the penalty only on the ground that the ER-1 return was filed electronically beyond the prescribed time limit....

Read More

Power Banks not eligible for benefits under N/No. 12/2012-Customs

CCE Vs S.B. Industries (CESTAT Delhi)

The present appeal has been filled by the Revenue against the Order-in-Appeal No.204/GST/DL-Appl-II/17/ vide which the Commissioner (A) has set aside the order of adjudicating authority....

Read More

No Service Tax on training and coaching in various foreign languages

Commissioner of Central Excise Vs Consistent Software Technologies (I) Pvt. Ltd. (CESTAT Mumbai)

Commissioner of Central Excise Vs Consistent Software Technologies (I) Pvt. Ltd. (CESTAT Mumbai) In the present case the respondent is engaged in imparting the training and coaching in various foreign languages i.e. French, German, Japanese, Spanish etc. which they claimed as a vocational training and covered under Notification No.9/2003-...

Read More

Penalty under excise Rules cannot be imposed merely for mere non-filing of separate appeal by Managing Partner

M/s. Rajhans Enterprises Vs Commissioner of Central Tax (CESTAT Bangalore)

M/s. Rajhans Enterprises Vs Commissioner of Central Tax (CESTAT Bangalore) Commissioner (A) has allowed the appeal of the firm and set aside the duty demand and the penalty; however, penalty under Rule 26 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 imposed on the Managing Partner of the appellant-firm was upheld on the ground that no separate [&hel...

Read More

Penalty under excise rule 26 can be imposed only on natural individual person

Apple Sponge and Power Ltd. Vs Commissioner of Service Tax, Audit-I (CESTAT Mumbai)

Penalty under Rule 26 can be imposed only on the natural individual person and not on the artificial person or company because the goods is handled by natural living person and not by an artificial entity. ...

Read More

Activity of fixing MRP stickers amounts to manufacture & liable to excise duty

Amit Talwar Vs CCE, Delhi-I (CESTAT Delhi)

It is the allegation of Revenue that the activity of changing the MRP/ affixing MRP stickers in their godown will fall within the deeming provision in Section 2(f) (iii) and consequently, Central Excise duty is required to be discharged in terms of Section 4A of the Central Excise Act, which has not been done by the appellant...

Read More
Page 1 of 7012345...102030...Last »

Browse All Categories

CA, CS, CMA (3,727)
Company Law (3,816)
Custom Duty (6,932)
DGFT (3,666)
Excise Duty (4,127)
Fema / RBI (3,455)
Finance (3,662)
Income Tax (27,253)
SEBI (2,883)
Service Tax (3,356)