NIIT Limited Vs Commissioner, CGST (CESTAT Delhi) Transitional provision of Section 142(3) of CGST Act provides that every claim of refund filed by the person after the appointed day (30.06.2017) for refund of any amount of Cenvat credit/duty/tax/interest or any other amount paid under the existing law shall be disposed of in accordance with the […]
In the instant case no evidence has been produced by the revenue to hold that the amount collected by the appellant is exclusive of service tax or it has been separately collected by the appellant. In view of the above, we do not find any merit in the department’s stand that benefit of Section 67(2) could not be extended.
Dabur India Limited Vs C.C.E & S.T. (CESTAT Ahmedabad) Appeal No. E/10573/2015 is filed by appellant – M/s. Dabur India Limited (Unit-1) against Order-in-Original No. VAP-EXCUS-000-COM-014-14-15 dated 30.12.2014 and Appeal No. E/10574/2015 is filed by appellants-M/s. Dabur India Limited (Unit-2) against Order-in-Original No. VAP-EXCUS-000-COM-015-14-15 dated 30.12.2014. The issue in both these appeals is common. Therefore, […]
He pointed out that when trainees are employed by the appellant, the appellant spent a significant amount of time and money in training the employees therefore, the employment contract has various conditions put on the trainees. In case the trainee breaches any of those conditions, a specific amount is recoverable from the trainees. The said amount is also sought to be taxed under Section 66E(e) of the Finance Act, 1994.
Drishty Communication Private Limited Vs C.C.E. & S.T. (CESTAT Ahmedabad) The appellants were engaged in providing services as advertising service to get customize and were registered “The Indian Newspaper Society” (INS). They were remitting 85% of the total amount received from their customers on getting space/time from media agencies or news papers or various publications. […]
HC Held that, providing services of ‘Goods Transport Agency’ (GTA) does not fall within the category of ‘Clearing and Forwarding Agent’, provided to several recipients who were liable to discharge tax dues on freight under ‘RCM after availing permissible abatement.
Nayara Energy Limited Vs Commissioner of Central Excise & ST, Rajkot (CESTAT Ahmedabad) The issue involved in this case is regarding the eligibility to avail Cenvat credit of the amount of CVD paid as debit in Served From India Scheme (SFIS). It is undisputed that as per Rule 3 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, any […]
Facts reveal that service tax in regard to impugned service already been paid to Government, department cannot collect service tax again on impugned service.
Merely because CA certificate is not as per liking of authorities, it cannot be brushed aside as no specific format of certificate has been prescribed by statute.
CESTAT held Service tax not payable on ‘Software Activation Charges’ under taxable services of ‘Business Auxiliary Services
