Initially, the adjudicating authority rejected the refund claim holding that the appellant has not contested the service tax liability, therefore, the refund claim of service tax paid is not admissible.
M/s. Tinplate Company of India Limited Vs Commissioner of Central Excise & Service Tax (CESTAT Kolkata) Conclusion: Assessee adid not receive any amount from TSL as and by way of consignment agent or towards providing any consignment agency service under the consignment agency agreement and also, assessee had cleared the converted goods on payment of […]
No service tax was applicable on sizing operation activity as sizing of coal was an incidental and ancillary process to make coal marketable and thus complete ‘manufacture’ of coal and to make it into ‘excisable goods’ as per Section 2(d) of the Central Excise Act.
BST Infratech Limited Vs Commissioner of CGST & Excise, Bolpur Commissionerate (CESTAT Kolkata) We find that no physical verification of input consumption qua finished goods manufactured thereto was carried out by the department. The duty has been demanded on the basis of audit objection without causing any investigation. It is our considered view that the […]
No service tax applicable to salary paid to employees under the secondment agreement as persons seconded to assessee working in the capacity of employees and payment of salaries etc was made to such employees by group companies only for disbursement purposes and hence employee-employer relationship exist and the whole arrangement between assessee and its group companies did not fall under the taxable service of manpower recruitment or supply agency service as defined under the Finance Act, 1994.
South Eastern Coalfields Ltd. Vs Commissioner of Central Excise and Service Tax (CESTAT Delhi) The Principal Bench of Hon’ble CESTAT set aside the Service Tax demand of Rs. 32.76 Crores approx., plus equal penalty and applicable interest, on the amount of Liquidated Damages / Forfeiture of EMD / Penalty recovered from the various contractors & […]
Honda Cars India Ltd. Vs The Commissioner, Central Excise and Service Tax (CESTAT Delhi) The charge leveled against the appellant, in the show cause notice, that JPY 130,000,000/- was paid towards the first installment mentioned in the Technical Agreement/ Model Agreement amounting to JPY 400,000,000/- is factually incorrect. As noticed above, JPY 130,000,000/- was paid […]
Metlife Global Operations Support Center Private Limited Vs Commissioner, Service Tax (CESTAT Delhi) The substantive benefit of service tax exemption provided under section 26 of the SEZ Act read with rule 31 of the SEZ Rules cannot be denied on procedural grounds. It is not in dispute that the appellant was not required to deposit […]
Gammon India Ltd. Vs Commissioner of Service Tax (CESTAT Mumbai) Mobilization advance is not an advance towards the provision of service and in the nature of loan facility. The ‘mobilization advance’ is adjusted against the final payment due and is not linked to the work but as a pledge of the contract between the appellant […]
Rajesh Kumar Ishwar Parikh Vs C.C. (CESTAT Ahmedabad) The Learned Authorized Representative in his submission also confirmed that Rs.19.91 Lacs were shown as Cash in hand in the books of Partnership Firm of both the appellants therefore, the source of fund for procuring the foreign currency was available with the appellants. The only lapse on […]
