CESTAT Kolkata rules compensation received by Buyer on cancellation of Agreement to Sell immovable property not subject to Service Tax under Section 66E(e). Observes compensation for non-fulfillment by Seller doesn’t fall under ‘Declared Service’.
CESTAT Kolkata held that when there is no other price available at the time of clearance of the goods from the factory to depot on stock transfer basis, the only way available is to determine the assessable value based on the best judgment method.
The case of M. Pandidurai Vs Commissioner of GST & Central Excise in CESTAT Chennai sheds light on the significance of upholding principles of natural justice in tax proceedings, setting a significant legal precedent.
CESTAT Bangalore modifies penalties in case of import valuation discrepancies. Learn more about the details of Sri Sai Graphics Vs Commissioner of Customs.
Unravel the details of the CESTAT Mumbai case – Satyasai Human Resource Solutions Vs Commissioner of Service Tax. CESTAT grants refund on service tax advance paid in line with Rule 6 of Service Tax Rules.
CESTAT Chennai held that contract is for performance of the work and not for supply of manpower. Further, payments are for the works executed on tonnage basis/ unit basis and not on man hours or per person basis. Accordingly, service tax not payable on ‘Manpower Recruitment or Supply Agency Services’ (MRSAS).
Delve into the Rama Ferro Alloys & Finance Private Limited Vs Commissioner of CGST & CX case where CESTAT Kolkata rules in favour of the appellant regarding utilization of cenvated inputs in job work.
CESTAT Kolkata decision in Om India Trading Company Private Limited Vs Commissioner of CGST & Central Excise case, upheld the rejection of a service tax refund claim filed beyond stipulated time limit under Section 11B of Central Excise Act.
Unravel the complexity of the case between Amadeus Software Labs India Pvt Ltd and the Commissioner of Central Tax (CESTAT Bangalore), involving ambiguity over the jurisdiction for a second appeal in tax rebate matters.
CESTAT overturned the order that had previously confirmed the demand on expenses such as deconsolidation charges, transportation charges, and DO charges. These expenses were initially collected by the assessee from their clients and then paid to the service provider.
