M/s. Mahasemam Trust Vs Commissioner of Central Excise (CESTAT Chennai) There is no dispute, that appellants are a Registered Charitable Trust. There is also no allegation that they have been approved to function as a bank or even as a non-banking institution by the R.B.I. This being so, they cannot be termed as a “Banking […]
The present appal is filed against the of Order-in-Original No. DEL-SVTAX-ADJ-COM-48-53-13-14 dated 31.03.2014 passed by the Commissioner of Service Tax (Adj.), New Delhi. The period of dispute is from 01.04.2007 to 31.03.2012. 2. Vide the impugned order, the Commissioner has adjudicated the demand raised in six show cause notices issued by various parties. The total service tax demand upheld vide the impugned order is Rs. 4,05,97,745/- alongwith interest and penalties. The following table indicates the demand of service tax made under the different services.
M/s. Sail Refractory Co. Ltd. Vs Commissioner of GST & Central Excise (CESTAT Chennai) Bonus and penalty are post-sales provisions, therefore excise duty cannot be levied on such payments which are based on performance post-sales / clearance of the goods. Above issue is covered by the judgment in the case of Vishwakarma Refractories Pvt. Ltd. Vs. […]
Brief facts are that the appellants are manufacturers of Transformer oil, Petroleum jelly and light liquid paraffin and are availing the facility of Cenvat credit on service tax paid on various input services. During the disputed period, they had availed credit of service tax paid on courier services for sending the samples of their products to buyers in foreign countries. The department was of the view that these are export of goods as the courier services is akin to outward transportation of finished goods from factory gate to the customer’s premises and therefore is not eligible for credit
We are of the view that the ULIP surrender charges are not part of taxable service of management of funds. Rather it is in the nature of penalty or liquidated damages which is not a service and hence cannot be made liable for tax during the period involved .
As per the exemption Notification No. 6/2005-ST dated 01.03.2005, there is a condition which is to be complied with by the service provider and as per the condition, the provider of taxable service has an option not to avail the exemption and such exemption once exercised in a financial year, shall not be withdrawn during the remaining part of the year.
M/s. Venus Wire Industries Pvt. Ltd. Vs Commissioner of Central Excise & Service Tax (CESTAT Mumbai) In this case, the U.S. Department of Commerce and European Commission issued notices to the assessee for levying anti-dumping duty on the goods exported by it. For the purpose of effective participation before the anti-dumping authorities, the appellant had […]
M/s. Rane Brake Lining Ltd. Vs Commissioner of GST & Central Excise Puducherry (CESTAT Chennai) The first issue that arises for consideration is whether the appellant is eligible for credit of the service tax (ST) paid on product liability insurance. The department has denied the same on the ground that it is post-manufacturing activity and […]
It is to be understood that the appellants are not basically an agency involved with the testing and certification. In fact, it is abundantly clear that they are performing certain activities which make the truck tanks fit to be filled with LPG for further transportation.
The Ramco Cements Limited Vs CCT (CESTAT Hyderabad) It is not in dispute that the welding electrodes are used for repair and maintenance of capital goods within the factory of manufacturer and these capital goods are used for manufacture of the final product although the relationship is remote and not direct. So by no stretch of imagination can […]
