The issue on merit that whether the service of construction of complex provided by the appellant’s cooperative housing society to its members is eligible to service tax or otherwise has been settled in favour of the appellant. It was informed by the learned counsel that the Hon’ble High Court’s judgment (supra) has been accepted by the revenue.
H.C. Buildcon Pvt. Ltd. Vs Commissioner, Central Excise & CGST Alwar (CESTAT Delhi) As regards the second submission regarding the certificate dated March 31, 2010 issued by the Regional Manager, RIICO, a perusal of the said certificate would show that it was issued by the Regional Manager RIICO in connection with the commercial plot allotted […]
Indus Tropics Ltd Vs C.C.E. & S.T. Rajkot (CESTAT Ahmedabad) The issue in brief is that though entire defaulted amount of central excise duty along with interest stands deposited with a delay of few weeks, the Department is of the view that as per the provisions of Rule 8(3A) of Central Excise Rules, 2002, the […]
The raw material supplier cannot be implicated for clandestine removal of the goods by the buyer of the raw material.
B T Patel & Co Vs C.C.E. & S.T.-Rajkot (CESTAT Ahmedabad) CESTAT find that the learned Commissioner in denying the exemption by made a strict interpretation of language of the notification no. 4/2004-ST dated 31.03.2004 though as per the language of the exemption of service provided to SEZ developer or to the unit in SEZ. […]
Harish Tex Mach Pvt Limited Vs Commissioner of Central Excise & ST (CESTAT Ahmedabad) In terms of Notification No. 6/2005-ST, the exemption was provided upto the aggregate value of Rs. 4 lakh in the year 2005-06, 2006-07 and Rs. 8 Lakh in the year 2007-08 and 2008-09. Accordingly, the value of taxable services of the […]
Demand on documentation services raised under Steamer Agent Services, in fact, it is Business Support Services, which came into effect from 01.05.2006, Therefore, documentation services are not liable to service tax prior to 1st May, 2006.
CESTAT held that penalty under Rule 15(1) on the present appellant, who is merely an employee of the Company, is not sustainable.
Pawan Edifice Pvt Ltd Vs C.C.E. & S.T. (CESTAT Ahmedabad) CESTAT find that there is no dispute on the fact that the appellant have been providing the construction of residential complex along with material and they have paid the VAT to the State Government. In this regard, they have also produced the VAT returns. In […]
CESTAT Kolkata held that imposition of penalties on both proprietorship firm and proprietor amounts to imposition of penalty twice and the same is unsustainable in the eyes of law.
