The Appellants contended that the mixture manufactured by the Respondents is Natural Gas Liquid (NGL) in contrast to which the Respondents submitted that the above is rather gas condensate on which NCCD should not be levied.
SRL Advisors LLP Vs Commissioner of Central Tax Delhi (CESTAT Delhi) Rule 2(bc) of Service Tax Rules, refers to the meaning of ‘body corporate’ in Section 2(7) of the Companies Act, wherein any other body corporate which includes a LLP is specifically excluded from the definition of body corporate. Thus I hold that the appellant […]
CESTAT held that, there is no need to establish one-to-one correlation between output service exported and input service used in such services.
CESTAT held that, no service tax is to be imposed on liquidated damages recovered for not adhering to time limits mentioned in the contract as the same would not be covered in ‘Declared Services’ mentioned under Section 66E(e) of the Finance Act, 1994
Read about CESTAT Chennai ruling exempting service tax on forfeiture of earnest money deposit and liquidated damages. Understand legal implications and clarifications under Section 66E(e) of Finance Act.
Pepsico India Holdings (Pvt.) Ltd Vs Commissioner of Central Tax (CESTAT Hyderabad) The department wants to deny benefit of the CENVAT credit on the ground that ‘services related to setting up of a factory’ which were specifically included prior to 1.4.2011 were no longer specifically included post 1.4.2011. We find that the definition of ‘input […]
Hon’ble CESTAT, Delhi observed that Carting Challan is not equivalent to a Consignment note. Carting Challan is only for internal control of forest department whereas a Consignment Note is a negotiable instrument in which the transporter is bound to deliver the goods to a bonafide holder of title.
Appellant is entitled to refund of the amount of Cenvat Credit lying in their Cenvat Credit account on closure of business along with interest.
It is the settled law that when both board’s circular and the judgment of Court of law is prevailing and the judgment has contrary view than to the board circular in such case the Court’s judgment will prevail over the board circular.
Appellant availed credit on the Service tax paid and applied for refund under Rule 5 of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 (CENVAT Credit Rules) for the period July, 2013 to September, 2013.
