CESTAT Ahmedabad held that purchase of land from landowners and re-sale of the same to Real Estate Developers doesn’t fall under the category of ‘Real Estate Agency Service’ and hence not liable to service tax.
CESTAT Ahmedabad held that irrespective of the fact that whether at the supplier’s end duty is payable or otherwise, CENVAT Credit not deniable once duty has been paid on the goods at the recipient end. In nut-shell, CENVAT not deniable on the ground that the supplier was not liable to pay duty on goods supplied.
CESTAT Ahmedabad held that supplying labour doesn’t qualify as ‘Cargo Handling Services’. The goods do not become cargo as any movement of goods within the factory does not make it a cargo.
CESTAT Chandigarh held that penalty under section 114A of the Customs Act, 1962 not imposable in absence of any duty demand. Penalty u/s 114A is invariably linked to the quantum of duty evaded.
Commissioner Central Excise & Central GST Vs Navdeep Traders (CESTAT Delhi) Issue- whether the activity of the respondent is a works contract service and thus the value of the blasting material/explosives is to be excluded from the amount received by the assessee for blasting at customers site for excavation of sand stone. The respondent – […]
Messrs Mahasagar Travels Limited Vs Commissioner of Central Excise & ST (CESTAT Ahmedabad) Briefly stated the facts of the case are that both the appellants are engaged in the inter-state and intra-state transportation of passengers and registered as Tour Operators and paying service tax in normal course of their business. However, Notification No. 20/2009-ST dated […]
CESTAT Delhi held that rejection of transaction value and determining the value based on the contemporaneous value available in National Import Database (NIDB) correct as quantity of goods is much larger than what was declared; buyer and seller are related parties and grade of guar gum is mis-declared.
IOCL was not entitled for the conversion of DEEC shipping bills to drawback shipping bills since it was barred by limitation and was rightly rejected by the competent authority and for the reason for non-filing of the requisite documents in terms of Section 149 of the Customs Act as well as the Circular.
CESTAT Ahmedabad held that the term ‘permanently’ in 4th Proviso to rule 9 of Pan Masala Packing Machine Rules is clearly related to a particular month and not forever.
CESTAT Delhi held that denial of CENVAT credit of ‘event management services’ merely because invoice didn’t mention what event was being organized is unjustified.
