Service tax can be demanded under 65(105)(zzzh) only if the building concerned has more than 12 residential units in the building and such levy will not apply in cases where in one compound has many buildings, each having not more than 12 residential units.
The respondents are, or have been, ‘surrogate’ providers of `broadcasting’ service in India, taxable under section 65(105)(zk) of Finance Act, 1994 since 2001 (and, more especially, with retrospective effect of the amendment incorporated in 2002), in the hands of `broadcasting agency’ as defined in section 65(16) of Finance Act, 1994.
The issue in this appeal is whether the benefit of VCES-Voluntary Compliance encouragement Scheme, 2013 have been rightly denied to the appellant on the basis of clerical error in filing the declaration?
Commissioner of Customs Vs Oriental Trimex Ltd. (CESTAT Delhi) If the confiscated goods allowed to redeemed on a redemption fine then the sale proceeds will be paid only after deduction of such fine In the given case the importer appellant is engaged in the business of import of marble from various countries into India and […]
YCH Logistics (India) Pvt. Ltd Vs C.C.E & C.S.T (CESTAT Bangalore) The services imported by the assessee are taxable services and are chargeable to Service Tax but they had not paid the Service Tax applicable on the same. The assessee were liable to pay the Service Tax on import of such services as a recipient […]
Chief Commissioner of Customs was directed to consider whether it should be necessary to cause a vigilance enquiry on the system failure to determine how the consignments were cleared when there were so many mis-declaration in description as well as classification of the imported Point of Sale Devices (POS) and Mobile Point of Sale Devices (MPOS) and evasion of customs duty.
Since no services were being specially provided by the customs officials to the custodians at a customs port or customs airport, to enable them to collect any fee, from such a custodian thus, High Court not only set-aside the demand of Cost Recovery charges but even held that Regulation 5(2) of Regulation 2009 was illegal.
CESTAT Ahmedabad has upheld the Commissioner (A) Order allowing Cenvat credit of the duty paid on provisionally assessed bill of entry in a case where the final assessment revealed that less duty was payable. The Tribunal in this regard relied upon number of case law and observed that it is settled that even though certain amount of excise duty/service tax is not payable as per law but the manufacturer/service provider pays it, Cenvat Credit cannot be denied at the recipient end only on the ground that the same was not payable by the manufacturer/service provider.
NMC Industries Pvt Ltd Vs Commissioner of Service Tax (CESTAT Mumbai) We are unable to comprehend the resort to Railways Act, 1989 for a broader understanding of expression ‘railways’ in the absence of permissible referral in section 65(105)(zzzza) or (zzp), or, for that matter, anywhere in section 65, of Finance Act, 1994. In the absence […]
Sponsorship and endorsement expenses paid by Adidas India to various athletes and players in India were not includable in the assessable value of the goods imported by Adidas India by invoking rule 10(1)(e) of the Customs Valuation (Determination of Value of Imported Goods) Rules 2007.
