Whether department is correct in charging service tax on various services provided to film distributors by assessee without charging any consideration.
Ashirwad Foundaries Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of CGST & Central Excise (CESTAT Kolkata) CESTAT dropped the demand of Service tax on GTA under RCM, stating revenue neutrality. Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CCE, Pune Vs Coca-Cola India Pvt. Ltd., 2007 (213) ELT 490 (SC) and CCE, Vadodara Vs Narmada Chematur Pharmaceuticals Ltd., 2005 […]
Sale of banking software to a bank was ‘commercial exploitation’ merely because the bank deployed the software in its normal business activities was not correct in the absence of facts that establish otherwise or of any evidence that such was the transaction between assessee and the customers, therefore, demanding service tax on the same was not justified.
Lanco solar Pvt. Limited Vs Commissioner, Central Tax, Central Excise, Customs (CESTAT Delhi) Delhi CESTAT held that the ab initio exemption provided under the SEZ provisions, having overriding effect on the service tax provision. Under such position of law, a notification under service tax cannot restrict or provide a time limit for grant of refund […]
Milk crumb was marketable and hence assessee-cadbury was liable to pay excise duty for clearing goods without payment of duty as revenue neutrality could never be ground for not demanding the duty on the excisable goods in the form and manner they were being cleared by assessee.
The issue involved is whether the appellants are liable to pay Service Tax on the rent received by them for allowing the harvesting contractors to use the Appellant’s bullock carts with tyres without any bullocks or driver for transporting the sugarcane to the sugar factories?
MAN Trucks India Pvt. Ltd. Vs CCE (CESTAT Delhi) In a case where the assessee had exported goods to sister concern who in turn had sold them to buyers there, with the foreign importer being responsible for providing after sales services, CESTAT Delhi has held that the discount given in consideration for non-provision of warranty […]
After amendment of section 110(2) it was concluded that no separate notice was necessary, before extending the period of limitation by a further six months (for issuance of show cause notice); the authority had to record reasons in writing, which of course, should be based on materials and inform the concerned party about the extension before the expiry of the first period of six months.
Adjudicating Authority was right in in imposing a penalty under the provision of Section 114A and Section 114AA of the Customs Act, 1962 as both the appellants were fully aware that M/s B Pvt. Ltd. was importing complete Segway electrically operated product in CKD condition by mis-declaring the same as CKD parts of components such as Power unit, transmission kit, etc.
High Court of Judicature at Madras has held that the refund of input Cenvat credit cannot be denied just because premises was unregistered, in the case of Commissioner of GST & Central Excise, Chennai Vs. BNP Paribas Sundaram Global Securities, in CMA No. 57 of 2018 dated 18.01.2018. Therefore, the denial of refund for the reasons of a premises being unregistered cannot sustain and the same is set aside.
