The definition of ‘construction of complex’ and a ‘residential complex’ continued to remain the same after 1 July, 2012 and, therefore, service tax liability could not have been fastened even after 1 July, 2012 under ‘construction of complex’.
Spring Dells Vs Commissioner of Central Goods & Service Tax (CESTAT Delhi) Conclusion: Assessee was entitled to the area-based exemption for the reason that it was admittedly the successor of the previous unit entitled to the exemption and all the units/sheds were located in one private industrial complex which could be said to be adjacent […]
Service tax can be demanded under 65(105)(zzzh) only if the building concerned has more than 12 residential units in the building and such levy will not apply in cases where in one compound has many buildings, each having not more than 12 residential units.
The respondents are, or have been, ‘surrogate’ providers of `broadcasting’ service in India, taxable under section 65(105)(zk) of Finance Act, 1994 since 2001 (and, more especially, with retrospective effect of the amendment incorporated in 2002), in the hands of `broadcasting agency’ as defined in section 65(16) of Finance Act, 1994.
The issue in this appeal is whether the benefit of VCES-Voluntary Compliance encouragement Scheme, 2013 have been rightly denied to the appellant on the basis of clerical error in filing the declaration?
Commissioner of Customs Vs Oriental Trimex Ltd. (CESTAT Delhi) If the confiscated goods allowed to redeemed on a redemption fine then the sale proceeds will be paid only after deduction of such fine In the given case the importer appellant is engaged in the business of import of marble from various countries into India and […]
YCH Logistics (India) Pvt. Ltd Vs C.C.E & C.S.T (CESTAT Bangalore) The services imported by the assessee are taxable services and are chargeable to Service Tax but they had not paid the Service Tax applicable on the same. The assessee were liable to pay the Service Tax on import of such services as a recipient […]
Chief Commissioner of Customs was directed to consider whether it should be necessary to cause a vigilance enquiry on the system failure to determine how the consignments were cleared when there were so many mis-declaration in description as well as classification of the imported Point of Sale Devices (POS) and Mobile Point of Sale Devices (MPOS) and evasion of customs duty.
Since no services were being specially provided by the customs officials to the custodians at a customs port or customs airport, to enable them to collect any fee, from such a custodian thus, High Court not only set-aside the demand of Cost Recovery charges but even held that Regulation 5(2) of Regulation 2009 was illegal.
CESTAT Ahmedabad has upheld the Commissioner (A) Order allowing Cenvat credit of the duty paid on provisionally assessed bill of entry in a case where the final assessment revealed that less duty was payable. The Tribunal in this regard relied upon number of case law and observed that it is settled that even though certain amount of excise duty/service tax is not payable as per law but the manufacturer/service provider pays it, Cenvat Credit cannot be denied at the recipient end only on the ground that the same was not payable by the manufacturer/service provider.
