Ruchi Soya Industries Limited Vs Principal Commissioner of GST & Central Excise (CESTAT Chennai) Ld. Counsel Shri Vishal Sundar submitted that Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) was initiated in respect of the appellant under the provisions of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 by order of the National Company Law Tribunal, Mumbai (NCLT) dt. 08.12.2017 […]
Rented property jointly owned by five persons, whether appellants are liable to service tax by clubbing of all five persons or otherwise
As per Section 67 of Finance Act, 1994 only that value which is charged by the service provider to the service recipient shall be considered the gross value. Value of the material supplied by the service recipient since not charged by the service provider, cannot be included in the gross value of the service.
No Service Tax could be levied on construction of residential complexes prior to 01.07.2010 even when service is rendered either as service simpliciter or as a works contract
CESTAT Ahmedabad dismisses revenue’s appeal against IOCL, affirming the transaction value under Section 4(1)(a), setting a precedent for similar cases.
CESTAT held the exchange rate applicable will be the rate on the date the warehousing bill of entry was filed for putting goods in bond.
Credit availed by an assessee cannot be denied or varied on the ground that the classification of service should have been made in a different category by the provider of service.
CESTAT Ahmedabad held that activity of only transportation of goods will not be considered as cargo handling service.
CESTAT Ahmedabad held that nothing in the expression of Section 17(4) indicates that re-assessment of duty can be done at the request of party which has self-assessed its Bill of Entry and after clearance wants another benefit.
CESTAT Chandigarh held that interest on delayed refund at the rate of 12% per annum payable from the date of deposit till the date of payment.
