Commissioner of Central Excise & ST Vs Adani Power Limited (CESTAT Ahmedabad) As regards the issue that whether Commissioner (Appeals) has power to remand the matter to Adjudicating Authority, we find that this being a case of refund of service tax, clearly covered by the ratio of Hon’ble Gujarat High Court judgment in the case […]
Transaction value i.e. FOB price cannot be treated as cum duty price under section 14 of Customs Act, 1962 for the purpose of calculation of export duty.
Cubex Tubings Ltd. Vs Commissioner of Customs, Central Excise Central Excise and Service Tax (CESTAT Hyderabad) The issue in dispute is whether the appellant assessee is entitled to CENVAT Credit on the disputed eight invoices or otherwise. It is the case of the Revenue that no material was received by the appellant against these invoices […]
Blue Star Civil Engineering Company Private Limited Vs Commissioner of Central Excise (CESTAT Kolkata) The facts of the case are that the assessee M/s. Blue Star Civil Engineering Co. Pvt. Ltd. Mecheda was engaged in evacuation of ash pond for Durgapur Projects Ltd., Purba Medinipur Zilla Parishad, Rites Ltd. for railway and McNally Bharat for […]
Activity of transportation of iron ore lumps from the mines site to the appellant’s crusher plant does not constitute GTA service in terms of Sec.65(105)(zzp) read with Sec.65(50b) of the Finance Act, 1994.
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?
