Commission received from the financial institution towards sale of their loan product is liable to Service Tax
CESTAT find that since there is no intention of the appellant to evade any duty as the appellant have discharged the service tax and utilized the same though incorrectly but it was a revenue neutral situation as the appellant is otherwise entitled for the refund of the same amount. Hence, in absence of any mala fide penalty under section 78 is not imposable. Therefore, the penalty imposed under section 78 is set aside.
Unjust-enrichment does not exist in case where assessee initially charged duty / service tax and subsequently issued credit note for the same
Appellant is eligible for refund even though condition 2(b) of Notification No.102/2007-Cus. dated 14.09.2007 not been complied
When the tax is paid under reverse charge mechanism, appellant would be entitled to avail credit of same, which leads to a revenue neutral situation
Lupin Limited Vs Commissioner of Central Tax & Customs (Appeal) (CESTAT Hyderabad) HC held that the appellant have rightly taken credit in view of Rule 2(l) of CCR which entitles a manufacturer to claim Cenvat credit on input services utilise in manufacture of dutiable taxable goods. HC further hold that there is no bar in […]
Innasimuthu Package Vs Commissioner of GST & Central Excise (CESTAT Chennai) The issue in all these appeals being the same, they were heard together and are disposed of by this common order. 2. In these appeals, the issue relates to applicability of exemption Notification No. 4/2006-CE dated 1.3.2006.at Sl. No. 72 which deals with the […]
Dipal Narendrabhai Shah Vs C.C.E. & S.T.-Bhavnagar (CESTAT Ahmedabad) These appeals are directed against the Order-In-Appeal whereby the Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the penalty imposed by the original authority under Rule 26 (1) of Central Excise Rules, 2002. The brief facts of the case are that all the appellants in the present appeals were allegedly involved […]
Service Tax not payable on ‘Business Auxiliary Service’ provided to a foreign principal, which has been utilized outside India
CESTAT held that where service provider had deployed his employees in manufacturing premises of appellant for specified job works, the same cannot be held as Manpower Supply Services.
