Service tax cannot be imposed under the category Real Estate Service in absence of any defined consideration for the alleged service as both the parties were buying and selling property on principal to principal basis rather than as an agent and the principle.
M/s. City Union Bank Ltd. Vs Commissioner of GST & Central Excise Trichy (CESTAT Chennai) Panthal and shamiana services are utilized by the appellant to inform the public that a new branch has been started in the said place. Such services would help the appellant to attract customers and also inform the public about the […]
Service tax was not leviable for setting up of temporary camps in connection with the Gur-ta-Gaddi Tercentenary Celebration as it was a religious event. M/s Lallooji & Sons Vs Commissioner of Central Excise & S (CESTAT Allahabad)
Hindustan Shipyard Ltd. Vs Commissioner of Central Excise (CESTAT Hyderabad) As far as the amounts received by the appellant from the Indian Navy for the purpose of upgrading their facilities at the shipyard are concerned, they are not linked to the present contract and hence can only be termed mobilization advances not linked to any […]
Order sanctioning refund by the first appellate authority (FAA) was upheld after rectifying the clerical/ arithmetical mistakes in the shipping bills.
M/s. ARCHI-TECHNICS Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise and Service Tax (CESTAT Bangalore) I find that there was delay in payment of service tax which was on account of the reasonable cause as the mother of one of the partner was suffering from heart problem. Further, I find that this Tribunal in the case of Raj […]
HLPL Global Logistics Pvt. Ltd. Vs CC, New Delhi (CESTAT Delhi) We are in agreement with the finding of the ld. Adjudicating authority that CHA helps not properly verified the functioning of the client from at the declared address by using reliable independent and authenticate documents. This was a serious lapse on part of the […]
Show cause notice was issued without scrutiny of the taxable value on which service tax was due from the appellant. He submitted that had Revenue scrutinized the entire transaction that was reflected in balance sheet, Revenue would have come to know that the freight charges reflected in balance sheet included various elements such as freight paid for inward transports of goods, freight paid on outward transport of goods.
Commissioner (A) has not respected the order of this Tribunal required to be penalized. Therefore, the ld. Commissioner (A) is directed to take care in future to avoid any penal action from this Tribunal.
Medisray Laboratories P. Ltd. Vs CCGST (CESTAT Mumbai) Coming to the statutory audit procedure, the purpose of audit, as available in the Manual published by the Institute of Chartered Accountants of India in respect of EA audit and CERA audit under Chapter 17 is that the idea behind such conduct of verification is to reasonably […]
