MedGenome Labs Ltd. Vs Commissioner Of Central Tax (CESTAT Bangalore) As per Rule 3 of POPS Rules, the place of provision of service shall be the location of the recipient of service. In the present case, the location of the recipient of service is in abroad. Therefore, the service deemed to have been provided in […]
CESTAT Bangalore rules in favor of Anil Kumble, citing precedent. No service tax liability for services provided under agreements with M/s. RCSPL and franchisee.
Callmate India Pvt Ltd Vs Commissioner of Customs (CESTAT Delhi) CESTAT finds that there is no case of deliberate mis-declaration made out on the part of the Appellant importer. The Bill of Entry had been filed as per the packing list and Bill of Lading. Further, the Shipper/Exporter have accepted their mistake, there being error […]
Porteck India Info Services Pvt. Ltd. Vs Commissioner of Central Goods & Service Tax & Central Excise (CESTAT Delhi) CESTAT finds that the action of the Asstt. Commissioner, of issuing of fresh show cause notice, instead of granting refund, in terms of Final Order of this Tribunal amounts to interference in the justice delivery system. […]
Hitachi Home And Life Solutions India Ltd. Vs C.C.E. & S.T. (CESTAT Ahmedabad) The CESTAT, Ahmedabad bench has held that the cenvat credit cannot be denied on warranty services provided free of cost during the warranty period. The appellants approached the Tribunal challenging the order of the department denying Cenvat Credit of services provided by […]
Unitech International Vs C.C.C. & S.T. (CESTAT Ahmedabad) The fact of the case are that the appellant is a 100% EOU and have cleared paper waste after segregation process of waste imported during the period October, 2003 to January, 2005 on payment of excise duty by availing the benefit of concessional Notification No. 23/2003 dated […]
CESTAT held that the agriculture/cultivation includes irrigation or watering of the plants, as due to lack of irrigation, it is very difficult to have any agriculture produce. Accordingly, it was held that the activities carried out by the appellant is covered in the Negative List, which are exempt from Service tax.
TIDC India Ltd. Vs Commissioner of GST & Central Excise (CESTAT Chennai) To claim Cenvat Credit primarily the service should be first covered under the definition of ‘input service’ and once the service is not covered due to exclusion clause irrespective of the fact whether the cost of service has been taken as expenditure in […]
D.J. Import (Prop-Harpreet Singh) Vs Commissioner of Customs (CESTAT Delhi) So far as penalty under Section 117 is concerned, CESTAT find that the conduct of the Appellant is also dubious, and not clean. In spite of having knowledge that the goods dispatched by the Shipper vide aforementioned Bill of Lading, being not as per order […]
Dow International Pvt Ltd Vs Commissioner of Customs (CESTAT Delhi) The Appellant is in Appeal against impugned Order-in-Appeal whereby, the Commissioner (Appeals) have rejected the Appeal on the ground of limitation. It has been observed in the impugned order that although the Appellant had filed an application of condonation of delay but have not given […]
