CESTAT Delhi held that no service tax is payable as the assessee did not receive any consideration for providing a corporate guarantee.
CESTAT Kolkata upholds that Coal Mines Provident Fund Organization (CMPFO) is not liable to pay service tax on administrative charges in the absence of service provider-recipient relationship and consideration.
A comprehensive review of the case National Building Construction Corporation Limited vs Commissioner of Central Excise & Service Tax, exploring the impact of the correct classification under Section 65(105)(zzd) for construction contracts.
CESTAT Mumbai’s decision, clarifying role of Revenue in filing revise applications under Section 35EE of Excise Act, in the case of Mail Order Solutions (I) Ltd.
CESTAT Chennai held that service tax could not be levied on ‘delayed payment charges’ collected by the appellant from their customers from 01.07.2012 also.
Explore CESTAT Mumbai judgement in Astoria Agro & Allied Inds Pvt Ltd Vs Commissioner of CGST, underlining importance of evidence consideration in rejecting Cenvat Credit claims
CESTAT held that the utilization of credit by any unit within the same entity would not cause any loss to the Exchequer. This is because the credit disallowed to one unit is proportionally made available to the second unit. From a company’s perspective, the net credit availed and utilized remains unchanged.
Delve into judgment of CESTAT Kolkata in the case of Pecon Computech Pvt Ltd Vs Commissioner of CGST & Excise, underlining non-applicability of unjust enrichment in context of Service Tax refunds
CESTAT Mumbai held that services provided by appellant (Commission agent) to their foreign principals is ‘export of service’ as contemplated under rule 3 of the 2005 Export Rules.
CESTAT Mumbai in Metro Fashions vs Commissioner of Customs, held that mere sending of Order-in-Original by registered post was not deemed to be valid communication, impacting the limitation period for an appeal.
