Revenue has compared the figures reflected in the ST-3 returns and those reflected in Form 26AS filed in respect of the appellant as required under the provisions of Income Tax Act, 1961.
CESTAT Chennai has held that commission received/paid for issuance of corporate guarantee to associate/subsidiary companies is not exigible to service tax under Section 65(12)(a)(ix) of Finance Act, 1994.
CESTAT Allahabad has held that benefit of service tax exemption was available on commission paid by exporter to its foreign based subsidiary for procurement of orders from foreign companies. It noted that denial of exemption would apply only in cases where export was made to own joint venture or wholly owned foreign subsidiary.
In the instant case, in terms of agreement work-wear rented out always remains within the exclusive possession of their clients and nobody else can use the those work-wear at the same time and hence effective control to lie with the user/ clients. The appellant, therefore, does not have control over the use of the work-wear. Thus the activity is not in the nature of service under the Finance Act in both during the period prior to negative list regime and thereafter.
The learned AR also accepted the legal position that mandatory pre-deposit can be made through the CGST Credit. In view of this fact, we are of the opinion that the objection raised by the Registry is not tenable
CESTAT Mumbai has held that Cenvat credit can be availed on foreign warehouse services received by a company in India for which service tax was paid under reverse charge mechanism. It was held that denial of credit would amount to double taxation.
CESTAT Delhi has allowed Cenvat credit on maintenance charges for common area of a business premises taken on rent by assessee. The charges were related to roads, street lights, drainage, etc., provided beyond the manufacturing premises but were charged based on per square meter of business premises occupied.
Talentpro India HR Pvt. Ltd Vs Commissioner of Service Tax (CESTAT Chennai) We find that during the personal hearing on 12.2011, the appellants had submitted that delay in payment of service tax was purely due to financial crunch but have paid the service tax with a delay of one month and also paid the interest […]
Kopran Ltd. Vs Commissioner of Customs (E) (CESTAT Mumbai) Rejecting the plea that bond/LUT executed by assessee-importer did not cover the anti-dumping duty leviable on material imported under Advance Authorisation, The Tribunal observed that the bond executed did not make any distinction between the duties leviable. Larger Bench order in Caprihans and Bombay High Court […]
Rajit Jain-succeesor And Legal Heir Vs Commissioner of Customs (CESTAT Allahabad) 1. The appellant is in appeal. 2. Brief facts of the case are that appellants are engaged in re-rubberisation of old, worn out rubberised rollers of various industries. The customers send them their used rollers at random and re-rubberisation comprises removing the old rubber […]
