In this case the appellant itself has arranged for transportation and paid the transportation cost and the same has been recovered from the bottlers. The contention of the appellant is that they were under bona fide belief that the transportation cost is borne by the bottlers and they are required to pay service tax.
Next question needs to be considered is whether the demand for the period March 2003 to February 2007 can be enforced when the demand notice was issued on 14.9.2007. In the aforesaid case where the Honorable High Court observed that the in absence of time limit prescribed for recovery, a reasonable period, be applied for […]
These are 11 appeals filed by the Revenue against various impugned orders. As the issue involved in all these appeals are similar and the respondent is same, we take up all these appeals together for disposal. The respondents are registered with the Department for service tax purposes. They have filed refund claims under rule 5 of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 readwith Notification No. 5/2006-CE (NT) dated 14-3-2006.
Rejection of refund claim filed under Notification No. 41/2007-S.T., dt. 6-10-2007, as amended is the subject matter of present dispute. The learned Commissioner (Appeals) vide the impugned order dated 6-8-2010 has denied the refund benefit on the ground that though, to and fro freight charges have been claimed by service provider, no separate freight has been mentioned on the bills from Pithampur to port of export; that the service charges, namely
There is no provision in Service Tax Rules for inclusion of value of scrap as an additional consideration; only the amounts received towards taxable services are leviable to service tax.
Appellant is eligible for rebate of Central Excise duty paid on inputs used in the manufacture of export goods, even in case where customs duty component is claimed as drawback.
Issue of imposition of redemption fine and penalty has been settled and now various Benches of the Tribunal have consistently held that the redemption fine of 10% of the value of the goods and penalty of 5% of the value of the goods is sufficient punishment to the importer. Therefore, following the ratios of various […]
The definition of business auxiliary service may not cover the transaction in this case, as the main appellant is not promoting or marketing of services provided by PFL as there is no service which has been provided by PFL in the case in hand.
There are no operative legislative provisions of the Act legitimising the levy and collection of service tax from the appellants, for providing Club or association service, in so far as these relate to any services provided to members of these appellants.
Decision of the Division Bench of the Tribunal in the case of ASR Multimetals Pvt. Ltd. (supra) is correct and the appellant is required to deposit separately 10% of the amount of the duty confirmed/ penalty imposed, for preferring of appeal before the Tribunal against the order of Commissioner (Appeals).
