Pujan Builders Engineers & Contractors Vs C.C.E. & S.T. (CESTAT Ahmedabad) The facts in the present case is not under dispute that the appellant have paid the excess service tax during the quarter April to June, 2017, however, the appellant under bona fide belief transferred the said excess paid service tax into their TRANS-1 as […]
Commissioner was not justified in confirming the demand of service tax under the category of ‘works contract’ for the period post June 1, 2007 even if the levy of service tax was not exempted under Notifications, since, the show cause notice that demand it service tax under the three categories namely (i) commercial or industrial construction, (ii) construction of complex and (iii) management, maintenance or repair.
The Application for refund of service tax has to be made within the period stipulated in sub-section (3) of section 102 of the Finance Act.
Venkateshwara Power Projects Ltd Vs Commissioner of Central Tax (CESTAT Bangalore) Assistant Commissioner passed the Order-in-Original on 18/03/2019 but the same was not actually delivered to the appellant. The appellant only came to know on 12/03/2020 when they received a letter from the Superintendent informing them about the passing of the Order-in-Original and ordered to […]
The issue involved in this appeal is as to whether the value of items supplied free of cost by service recipient to the appellant have to be included in the value of mining services provided by the appellant.
Service rendered by Tata Sons Ltd. under BEBP agreement between Tata Steel Ltd. and Tata Sons Ltd. was eligible as ‘input service’ for TSL and the service tax paid was available as cenvat credit to TSL under the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004.
In the instant case, the reinsurance services availed by the Appellant are for insuring its business risks and not in respect of any particular motor vehicle. Reinsurance, by its nature, pertains to the insurance of business of the Appellant.
The goods imported by assessee, such as, Big Cola, Big Orange Cola, Big Lemon etc., which they described as ‘carbonated beverage with fruit juice’ were neither carbonated beverage alone nor fruit juice alone gave the essential character of the products in question; both contribute to its essential character. The issue could not be resolved as per Rule 3(a) and 3(b) of the Rules of Interpretation and therefore resort was to be made to Rule 3(c). Since Customs tariff heading (CTH) 22029920 came last in the order, it prevails and the goods were classifiable under this heading.
Target Corporation India Pvt Ltd Vs C.C.E. (CESTA Bangalore) Definition of ‘Manpower Recruitment or Supply Agency’ seeks to bring under its ambit, two types of activities i.e. recruitment of manpower and supply of manpower and further the service becomes the taxable service only if provided by a manpower recruitment or supply agency but in the […]
Asalam Khan Vs Commissioner of Central Excise & Customs (CESTAT Delhi) Appellant had brought a small quantity of 233.00 gms. of gold in the shape of 20 disc (about 11.66 gm. per disc) for personal use. Further, I find that there is no commercial quantity either of gold or cigarettes. Further I find that the […]
