Rajasthan Prime Steel Processing Center Pvt. Ltd. Vs Commissioner Central Excise and CGST (CESTAT Delhi) Appellant is engaged in the manufacture of auto parts which the appellant sells to many buyers. The appellant had entered into a contract with Honda India for supply of auto parts used in the manufacture of motor vehicles. For the […]
Base oil SN50 could not be classifiable as High-Speed Diesel (HSD) in absence of any conclusive evidence to hold that the imported product was only HSD and it could be used as Automotive Fuel, the imported base oil in question could not be reclassified as HSD.
Hyundai Motor India Limited Vs Commissioner of Central Excise & Service Tax (CESTAT Chennai) The Tribunal vide Final Order No. 41431 of 2018 dated 01.05.2018 had earlier disposed of the above appeal. In paragraph 5 of the said order, the issue with regard to invoices issued by M/s. Natvar Parekh Industries relating to Port Services […]
Bharat Coking Coal Ltd. Vs Commr. of Central Excise & S. Tax (CESTAT Kolkata) The issue before us is whether credit is available on Coal Handing Plant (CHP), which has been set up by the appellant for evacuation of coal from its mining premises. Purpose of setting up of the CHP is to load the […]
Brindavan Bottlers Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Goods (CESTAT Allahabad) We find that the appellant have actually entered into an agreement for manufacture on job work basis. Evidently, as per the agreement the job charges have been spread over in two tier billing i.e. fixed charges and variable charges. The reason being that in […]
Sporty Solutionz Pvt. Limited Vs Commissioner, Central Goods and Service Tax (CESTAT Allahabad) Brief facts of the case are that the appellants had acquired ‘Media / Broadcasting rights’ of various sporting events from M/s Taj TV Ltd., Mauritius, for broadcasting cricket matches between Bangladesh and Zimbabwe (to be played outside India), in Bangladesh territory on […]
There is no evidence of payment in foreign currency to the foreign personnel. The invoices on which the demand of management consultancy service is raised shows merely expenses incurred by the appellant in Indian currency in the nature of hotel, transport and other expenses. There is no evidence to prove that they have received management consultancy service or paid fees for such services so as to be liable to pay service tax under reverse charge mechanism.
The issue to be decided is whether the levy of service tax on the TDS portion borne by the appellant is legal and proper. The issue stands decided by the order of the Tribunal in the appellant’s own case for a different period.
It was held that the Appellant will be entitled to exemption as services rendered to the Government Companies, i.e., RRVPNL in the present case, post 30.06.2012, being of non-commercial nature
Raymond Limited Vs Commissioner, Central Excise Customs & Service Tax (CESTAT Delhi) Whether show cause notice dated 28.09.2001 has been validly issued, for raising demand of service tax on GTO/GTA services received by the appellant for the disputed period, in terms of the prevailing Section 73 under reverse charge, and Hon‟ble Bombay High Court in […]
