CESTAT Delhi held that, the assessee could not be held to be liable for discharging service tax liability of the Demerged Undertakings as it the service recipient and not service provider therefore, the confirmation of demand by the Commissioner is bad in law.
The issue under consideration is whether the lower authority is correct in stating that the appellant is not entitled to avail credit of duty paid on inputs used in the manufacture of exempted goods since they have cleared the said exempted goods for export outside India?
Rohan Motors Limited Vs Commissioner of Central Excise (CESTAT Delhi) The demand of service tax in respect of the amount collected on account of bouncing of cheques and cancellation of orders is also not sustainable. These amount are penal in nature and not towards consideration for any service. In this connection reliance can be placed […]
Star Alloys & Chemicals Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CCE & ST (CESTAT Delhi) CESTAT has held that in the case of GTA service, CENVAT credit is available, therefore extended period cannot be invoked. Learned Advocate submits that whatever service tax was payable by them on the said GTA services, the same was available as a credit […]
The issue under consideration is whether service tax is applicable on income received from screening of movies for the annual film festival?
Goldman Sachs Services Vs Commissioner Of Central Tax (CESTAT Bangalore) Facts- Employees of overseas group companies have come on secondment to the assessee. The assessee has entered into separate employment contract with the seconded personnel and employer-employee relationship exists between the assessee and the seconded personnel. It is alleged that the activity falls under Business […]
The issue under consideration is whether the assessee banks are eligible for cenvat credit of service tax availed on insurance service received by the banks from the Deposit Insurance and Credit Guarantee Corporation?
There is no contract of commission agent service with any of the commission agent, there is no person to whom payment of commission was made therefore, it is clear that no service provider i.e. foreign commission agent exists in the present case.
The issue under consideration is whether the Calcite Sand (Calcite Powder) is classifiable under CT 2503 9030 as mineral product or required to be classified under CTH 2836 5000 as a chemical?
Commissioner of Customs Vs. Artex Textile Private Limited (CESTAT Delhi) we find that assessing officer have been making enhancement in a routine manner and the respondent who are regular importers are left with no choice but to sign on the dotted line for taking delivery of their goods to carry on their business, and also […]
