CESTAT Ahmedabad held that reverse charge not applicable on bank charges in respect of the foreign currency transaction between their local foreign banks engaged in facilitating the transfer of foreign exchange.
Cinepolis India Pvt Ltd Vs Commissioner of CGST (CESTAT Mumbai) These appeals of M/s Cinepolis India Pvt Ltd, against order-in-original no. MUM/CGST/MW/COMMR/AK/42-43/2020-21 dated 26th February 2021 of Commissioner of CGST, Mumbai West, arise from the unique deployment of constituents, that make up channel entities involved in exhibition of cinematographic films, in an arrangement by which […]
Messrs Dic Fine Chemicals Pvt Ltd Vs C.C.E (CESTAT Ahmedabad) As regard the issue that whether the refund claim can be rejected on the ground that the input services on which the refund claim was made by SEZ is not approved by the approval committee. As per the facts of the present case the refund […]
KPG Enterprise Vs C.C.E. Jamnagar (prev.) (CESTAT Ahmedabad) The issue mainly involved is whether MEA S.O. 2158(E) dated 20.06.2016 prohibited the subject vessel imported for breaking purpose. The case of the department is that S.O. dated 20.06.2016 is issued in order to implement the UNSC resolutions and prohibited the subject vessel for entry into India […]
Reliance Mediaworks Ltd Vs Commissioner of GST (CESTAT Mumbai) The arrangement most commonly entered into between a theater owner and a distributor is that the theater owner screens the movie for fixed number of days under a contract. The proceeds earned through sale of tickets go to the distributor but the theatre owner receives a […]
CESTAT restore the matter to the file of the Adjudicating Authority who shall pass a speaking order as per law after granting reasonable opportunities to the appellant and since the matter pertains to an earlier period which has travelled twice before this forum, the Adjudicating Authority shall pass a de novo order within a time-frame of 90 days from the date of receipt of this order by the respective Commissionerate.
CESTAT Chennai held that conditions as prescribed under Board’s Circular No. 36/2010 dated 23.09.2010 is duly complied and accordingly conversion from free shipping bills to Advance Authorization shipping bills needs to be allowed.
Chhaya Mahalley Vs Commissioner, Customs, Central Excise & CGST (CESTAT Delhi) The issue as to was whether coal transported from pitheads of the mines to the railway sidings would fall within the taxable service defined under section 65 (105) (zzzy) of the Finance Act was examined by the Supreme Court in Singh Transporters. The Supreme […]
Universal Bituminous Industries Pvt. Ltd. Vs Commr. of CGST & CX (CESTAT Kolkata) A Show Cause Notice dated 04/04/2019 was issued demanding an amount of Rs. 67,505/- (i.e 6% of 10% of traded goods) on traded items to the tune of Rs.1,12,50,819/- during the Financial Year 2013-14 2.2. The Ld. Adjudicating Authority confirmed the demand […]
P. Natesan & Co. Vs Commissioner of GST & Central Excise (CESTAT Chennai) CESTAT Chennai held that exemption of service tax as per section 102 of the Finance Act, 1994 is available only if the contract is entered prior to 01.03.2015. Here, contract is entered on 19.03.2015 and hence exemption not available. Facts- The appellant […]
