He pointed out that when trainees are employed by the appellant, the appellant spent a significant amount of time and money in training the employees therefore, the employment contract has various conditions put on the trainees. In case the trainee breaches any of those conditions, a specific amount is recoverable from the trainees. The said amount is also sought to be taxed under Section 66E(e) of the Finance Act, 1994.
Drishty Communication Private Limited Vs C.C.E. & S.T. (CESTAT Ahmedabad) The appellants were engaged in providing services as advertising service to get customize and were registered “The Indian Newspaper Society” (INS). They were remitting 85% of the total amount received from their customers on getting space/time from media agencies or news papers or various publications. […]
HC Held that, providing services of ‘Goods Transport Agency’ (GTA) does not fall within the category of ‘Clearing and Forwarding Agent’, provided to several recipients who were liable to discharge tax dues on freight under ‘RCM after availing permissible abatement.
Nayara Energy Limited Vs Commissioner of Central Excise & ST, Rajkot (CESTAT Ahmedabad) The issue involved in this case is regarding the eligibility to avail Cenvat credit of the amount of CVD paid as debit in Served From India Scheme (SFIS). It is undisputed that as per Rule 3 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, any […]
Facts reveal that service tax in regard to impugned service already been paid to Government, department cannot collect service tax again on impugned service.
Merely because CA certificate is not as per liking of authorities, it cannot be brushed aside as no specific format of certificate has been prescribed by statute.
CESTAT held Service tax not payable on ‘Software Activation Charges’ under taxable services of ‘Business Auxiliary Services
CESTAT held that SSI Exemption cannot be denied for Trademark Registration in Family Member name, Jointly in Family Members Name or in partners name.
Matter for denying the lower rate of duty prescribed for heading no. 3105 corresponding to ‘other fertilisers’ in Schedule to Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 was remanded back to the original authority for subjecting the statement of the employee, considered to be of particular relevance in determining the outcome of the impugned order, to the prescriptive mandate of section 9D of Central Excise Act, 1944.
National Fertilizers Limited Vs Commissioner CGST & Service Tax (CESTAT Delhi) It is not possible to accept the contentions advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant. It is not in dispute that the issues that arose in all the three appeals were identical. It is true that the Department had filed one appeal only […]
