Ganesh Narayan Sharma Vs C.C.E. & S.T. (CESTAT Delhi) I. The construction works executed by the appellant were rendered under composite contracts which involved both rendering of service as well as supply of goods and hence such contracts are in the nature of works contracts. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Larsen & […]
It is the case of the appellant that it did file its monthly ER-1 returns manually, without any delay but the respondent without verifying the same has imposed the penalty only on the ground that the ER-1 return was filed electronically beyond the prescribed time limit.
Learned AR argued that Commissioner (Appeals) has wrongly interpreted Notification No. 21/2002 by construing that Mumbai Metropolitan Regional Development Authority (MMRDA) is a road construction corporation under the control of the State Government.
The appellant has a Custom Broker Licence. The Commissioner of Customs, Jodhpur by issue of the impugned order, rejected the application dated 26.02.2015 filed for renewal of their Customs Broker Licence.
The present appeal has been filled by the Revenue against the Order-in-Appeal No.204/GST/DL-Appl-II/17/ vide which the Commissioner (A) has set aside the order of adjudicating authority.
Appellant’s task was mainly confined to providing of advisory services in respect of investments identified by overseas client and advise it with respect of investment opportunities in the companies, who are engaged in developing the real estate projects.
The present appeal is directed against Order-in-Original No. 35/Commissioner/Noida/2016-17 dated 31/03/2017 passed by Commissioner of Service Tax, Noida.
Services being architect services does not fall under exclusion to the definition of input service as per rule 2 (l) of CENVAT Credit Rules 2004, as the said exclusion is in respect of execution of works contract.
It is the allegation of Revenue that the activity of changing the MRP/ affixing MRP stickers in their godown will fall within the deeming provision in Section 2(f) (iii) and consequently, Central Excise duty is required to be discharged in terms of Section 4A of the Central Excise Act, which has not been done by the appellant
Briefly the facts of the present case are that the appellants are manufacturers of different models of EPABX. They are availing CENVAT Credit on certain inputs and input services as per CENVAT Credit Rules (CCR), 2004.
