Since, the show cause notice was issued by Revenue, burden of proof was on Revenue to establish that the hiring of halls and hotel rooms had no nexus with the output services. Whereas the finding as recorded by both the original and appellate authorities did not indicate that the burden of proof is discharged by Revenue.
For assessment of Bulk liquid Cargo duty is payable on quantity received in shore tank & not on quantity mentioned in Bill of Leading/invoice
During investigation there is no discrepancy pointed out regarding the stock of raw material maintained by the appellant and the return submitted for the relevant period shows proper transaction of said material as claimed by the appellant. After considering the above facts and circumstances, I find no reason to allege that the appellant had availed ineligible CENVAT credit.
Operational Energy Group India Pvt. Ltd. Vs Commissioner of GST & Central Excise (CESTAT Chennai) Issue whether service tax is required to be discharged on operational charges by the appellant has already been examined and decided in favour of the appellant by this Bench in the appellant’s own case vide Final Order No. 40104/2019 dated […]
Messrs Darcy Reservoir Consultancy Services P Ltd Vs C.S.T. Service Tax (CESTAT Ahmedabad) CESTAT gone through the records, various submissions made and the case laws cited before us. We find that the case laws cited (Supra) by the appellant squarely covers their activities under ‘Survey And Exploration Of Minerals Service’ and Department has sought to […]
Triumph India Software Services Pvt Ltd Vs Commissioner of Central Tax (CESTAT Bangalore) Managing Director of the appellant-company, appeared in person and submitted that she was the Managing Director of the Company at the relevant time. Due to financial difficulties, they could not pay service tax as submitted during investigation. Regarding the appellant’s responsibility to […]
CESTAT Delhi held that services of advertisement in print-media is exempt in terms of negative list of services under section 66D(g) of the Finance Act, 1994. Accordingly, service tax not leviable on the services of advertisement in print-media.
CESTAT Ahmedabad held that difference is value declared on import of non-calcined petroleum coke by the appellant i.e. Rs. 2871.15 as against the comparable imports price i.e. Rs. 3701.20 justified based on the nature of supplies and long-term contract of appellant with supplier.
Sos Finance Vs C.S.T. Service Tax (CESTAT Ahmedabad) Limited issue to be decided in the present case is that whether the appellants are liable for penalty under Section 76 & 78 of the Finance Act, 1994. As regard, the imposition of penalty under Section 76 in the present case, I find the issue is settled […]
Gulf Oil Corporation Ltd Vs C.C.E. & S.T. (CESTAT Ahmedabad) CESTAT find that the cenvat credit was denied to appellant on the ground that service being classifiable under Sponsorship Service, the appellant was supposed to discharge the service tax under GR-7 Challan. We find that the service provider M/s. K.P.H. Dream Cricket Pvt. Ltd. has […]
