The present appeal challenges the OIO No. 104/2011 dated 31.03.2011. The appellant is providing services of „General Insurance business. The dispute covers the period 2004-05 to 2007-08. During the disputed period, the appellants availed Cenvat credit of the service tax paid on repairs and maintenance of the vehicles by the „Authorized Service Stations‟ (ASS in short)
CC, Hyderabad- Customs Vs Surya Telecom Pvt Ltd (CESTAT Hyderabad) As a creation of law, the Tribunal cannot go beyond the law itself. The validity of the Act, Rules, Regulations and Notifications cannot be questioned or modified by the Tribunal. Only the High Courts and Supreme Court which examine the constitutionality of the laws can do so. Unless […]
The appeals are directed against the Order in Original No. 20/2013 dated 11.03.2013 as well as Order-in-Original No.66/2013 dated 07.11.2013. The appellant is a dealer of M/s. Maruti Udyog Ltd. (in short hereinafter called as “MUL”) in respect of the cars manufactured by MUL
The present appeal challenges the Order-in-Appeal No.8/2010 dated 24.02.2010. The demand covered the period 2004-05 to 2006-07. The appellant was engaged in providing Construction Service and Commercial or Industrial Construction service
All the three appeals are arising out of the same impugned order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) and as such, are being disposed of by a common order.
Kagal Nagar Parishad Vs Commissioner of Central Excise (CESTAT Mumbai) Revenue sought to tax the one time premium deposit, which is not refundable under the head of renting of immovable property service considering the same as rent. We find that there is a separate charge for the rent, which alone is taxable, the onetime premium […]
Coming to the controversy on rebate received from the postal department, it cannot be treated as a commission or an amount received for promoting the postal services. Such incentives are given by the postal authority to encourage use of franking machines, especially where the volumes are above a certain threshold level.
15% discount extended by the broadcasters cannot be included for the purpose of charging service tax under the category of advertising agency from the clients.
Narmada Drinks Pvt. Ltd Vs C.C.E. & S.T. (CESTAT Delhi) It is well known that the bottlers receive concentrate from the brand owners such as M/s Coca Cola, manufacture aerated products there from and sell the same. Para 6.2 of the relevant show cause notice alleges that the amounts have been received from the brand […]
Confiscation of freely importable air gun of 0.177 by shooter on the ground that he was not a renowned shooter is irregular as the same is not in conformity with rules prescribed for such imports.
