In case obligation under Rule 6(3) of Cenvat Credit Rules is fulfilled in respect of the goods cleared under full exemption then benefit of Notification 67/1995-CE dated 16.03.1995 cannot be denied.
State Bank of India Vs C.C. E. & S.T.–Surat (CESTAT Ahmedabad) find that the services provided by the appellant are in relation to the disbursement of EPF and ESI. Notification No. 13/2004-ST dated 10.09.2004 provides following exemption: “…. exempts taxable service provided by a banking company or a financial institution including a non-banking financial company, […]
The dispute in the present case is relating to the liability of the appellant under IPR service on Reverse Charge Mechanism (RCM).
Comet Technocom Pvt. Ltd. Vs Commissioner of Central Excise & S. Tax (CESTAT Kolkata) The issue here is very short. The assessee sent materials to diverse job workers for manufacture of the final product. Only inspection of the finished goods was carried out at the premises of the assessee. If the job workers are proved […]
Deep Industries Limited Vs C.S.T. Service Tax (CESTAT Ahmedabad) The limited question needs to be answered in this matter is whether interest on the amount of Cenvat credit availed but not utilized is recoverable or otherwise. The recovery of interest on the inadmissible Cenvat credit has been directed under Rule14 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, […]
Commissioner (Appeals) has discussed the reasons for dismissing the appeal filed by the Department as time barred. The Department had not produced any evidence to show the date on which the Reviewing Authority received the Order-in-Original.
CESTAT held that Service Tax liability of a sub-contractor would never cease, even when the main contractor remits Service Tax.
CESTAT Kolkata held that customs broker cannot be alleged to have violated Regulation 10(n) for non-existence of the exporter at the address. Customs Broker is no required to carry out physical verification of the address of the exporter to met his obligation under Regulation 10(n).
CESTAT Chandigarh held that area-based exemption vide notification No. 50/2003 dated 10.06.2003 is available as per substitution in the said notification vide notification no. 34/2005 dated 30.09.2005.
CESTAT Chennai held that amount received in the form of penalty amount, forfeiture of earnest money deposit and liquidated damages is not leviable to service tax.
