Maruti Suzuki is in appeal against the impugned order wherein cenvat credit on event management service has been denied on the ground that the same does not cover under Rule 2(l) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 as input service.
CESTAT quashed the demand for service tax on foreign remittance as assessee had paid the service tax on a higher value than proposed by the Department and also the demand had been dropped for the year 2010-2011, there was no reason why it should not be dropped for the year 2009-2010.
Anand Automotive challenges service tax demand. Delhi CESTAT order analysis. Legal insights by Anand Bhattacharya. Ruling on BSS category.
Flexi Caps And Polymers Pvt Ltd Vs Commissioner, CGST (CESTAT Delhi) The apparent fact on record is that the appellant has paid the entire CVD/SAD upon the goods imported by the appellant, as inputs, for manufacturing its final product. No doubt, initially the import was made duty free but for the reason that the appellant […]
Autobahn Enterprises Pvt Ltd Vs Commissioner of Service Tax (CESTAT Mumbai) Service Tax not leviable on discounts offered by car manufacturers to their dealers for onward transmission to corporate customers Autobahn Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. (Appellant) was an authorized dealer of M/s Skoda Auto India Pvt Ltd. and in accordance with their agreements, the Appellant was […]
In present facts of the case the Hon’ble Tribunal gave directions to dispose of the refund applications within 3 months after the filing of new refund application on the basis of observations made on procedure of refund applications.
Divi’s Laboratories Ltd. Vs Commissioner of Central Tax (CESTAT Hyderabad) It is submitted on behalf of appellant that appellant is an SEZ Unit. The chief contention of the Department for the part-rejection of the refund claim relates to service tax amount paid by the appellant on ocean freight services which is not included/covered under the […]
Nathi Mal Rugan Mal Vs Commissioner of Customs (CESTAT Mumbai) The appellants claim that they have cooperated with the investigation and have deposited Rs. 70,00,000 (Rupees Seventy Lakhs only) towards the duty liability, if any, that may arise on the past imports after completion of investigation; in respect of the impugned goods also they have […]
Appellant contended that he had obtained the authorization required in Regulation 11 (a) of the CBLR, 2013 but did not meet the importer directly instead had obtained it from a middleman. The Appellant contended that all the documentation along with the bill of entry were proper and legitimate.
It was categorically stated that when the TDS amount has been borne by the assessee and only the consideration for the services as agreed upon by the parties has been paid to the service provider, the TDS amount cannot be included in the taxable value for determining the Service Tax liability
