CESTAT Delhi held that service tax is leviable on services provided by hotels and restaurant in relation to letting out of halls or rooms for organizing any official, social or business function under ‘mandap keeper’ service.
CESTAT Chennai held that any other amount, other than gross amount charged for providing taxable service, which is calculated not for providing such taxable service cannot a part of that valuation as that amount is not calculated for providing such ‘taxable service’.
Fact of suppression, etc., has not been established by the Revenue to justify invoking the extended period of limitation
S.K. Enterprises Vs Commissioner of Customs (CESTAT Delhi) CESTAT observed that Though ld. Commissioner (Appeals) has discussed only one aspect of rejecting the claims i.e. time bar aspect. But it is observed that the orders of Original Authorities have been upheld by Commissioner (Appeals) resulting into merger of these orders. The perusal of Orders-in-Original is […]
Agriculture Produce Market Committee Vs C.CGST & CEx- Gandhinagar (CESTAT Ahmedabad) The issue involved in the present case is that whether the appellant, Agriculture Produce Market Committee (APMC for short) is liable to pay service tax on the rent recovered towards renting of shops, godown, office etc. to the commission agents/ traders under the head […]
Jamals Vs Commissioner of Service Tax (CESTAT Chennai) The Learned Advocate for the appellant would submit, at the outset, that the appellant, being a developer, is engaged in the development of residential projects and the contracts entered into with its customers were in the nature of composite contract involving both service and transfer of property […]
Commission paid to the overseas agents is in respect of service provided by that agent to the appellant to export its goods and thereby sales is promoted and Appellants are entitled to the benefit of exemption Notification No. 14/2004 and not liable to the payment of service tax under reverse charge.
Appellants claimed that services provided by them not qualify as Manpower Supply Service’as it was a contract for job work on per piece basis
The necessary interested parties had not been impleaded as respondents in these four appeals. In view of the request made by learned counsel for the appellants time was granted to move appropriate applications for impleading the remaining interested parties as respondents in the four appeals.
When the very basis of the calculation is wrong, we find that there is no way, such figures and calculation can be upheld.
