National Internet Exchange Of India Vs C.S.T. (CESTAT Delhi) The moot question for adjudication in the present case appears to be as to whether the registrar accreditation agreement is a mere agreement between the appellant and its registrar for accreditation or it actually is in agreement for rendering franchise services by the appellant to its […]
We hold that the Customs officers have no jurisdiction on the appellant to seize the goods in S.E.Z. area therefore seizure of the goods in question is set aside. Consequently, no demand can be confirmed against the appellants. Therefore the confiscation of the impugned goods is also set aside.
M/s Smart Value Products & Services Ltd. Vs Commissioner of Central Goods & Service Tax (CESTAT Allahabad) Facts of the case are not in dispute that the coaching centers are registered coaching center and provide services to their students. The coaching centers are also private limited companies and having separate identity known by the Registrar […]
Shri Krsna Urja Project Pvt Ltd. Vs CCE (CESTAT Delhi) CESTAT Delhi held that there was no legal basis for adopting cost inflation index of Income Tax dept for determination of assessable value under Section 4 of CE Act read with the CE Valuation Rules, 2000, for valuation of captively consumed goods. The Tribunal also […]
Other plea of the appellant that the allotment of land by the appellant to various persons is on long term lease basis – the leases of 90 years, which amount to transfer of ownership and such leases are outside the purview of Section 65(105)(zzzz)
Shree Balaji Tent House Vs C.C.E. & S.T. (CESTAT Delhi) In view of Section 65 (77a), ‘Pandal’ or ‘Shamiana’ is defined to mean a place specifically prepared or arranged for organizing an official, social or business functions; and under Section 65(77b) ‘Pandal or Shamiana Contractor’ means a person engaged in providing any service, either directly or […]
Once the workers come into the factory their services are used in relation to the manufacture of final products. But bringing workers to the factory or providing accommodation to them outside the factory or providing any other welfare measures for the workers or their families have no nexus with the manufacture of the final products, although they are welfare measures meant for the general well being of the workers who manufacture the goods.
Items falling under Chapter 170490 are entitled for exemption under Sugar Confectionary (excluding white chocolate and bubble gum). Admittedly, the goods manufactured by the appellants (Parle 2-in-1 Eclairs & Kismi Toffee ) are Sugar Confectionary is neither chocolate nor bubble gum.
National Building Construction Corporation Ltd. Vs CST (CESTAT Delhi) Services of construction of women hostel for and on behalf of Ministry of Women and Child Development (WCD), Government of India and construction of Civil Services Offices Institute are not commercial in nature. In furtherance of the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of […]
M/s. Patanjali Yogpeeth Trust Vs C.C.E. (CESTAT Delhi) Now coming to the demand qua the donations received by the appellant under one of its Scheme called Vanprastha Ashram Scheme, it is held that under this scheme the appellant was leasing the accommodation to all those who are interested to visit the appellant premises till their […]
