M/s Broekman Logistics India) Pvt Ltd. Vs Commissioner of GST & CE (CESTAT Chennai) Appellant is authorized to carry out the operations by setting up a unit in the FTWZ zone. They have been rendering Storage and Warehousing services predominantly to foreign customers. On the charges collected for services rendered to Indian customers, the appellants […]
Issue under consideration is that whether the Appellants are entitled to avail CENVAT Credit on the input service viz. event management service?
The same issue has been dealt by the Honble Gujarat High Court in the case of Federation of Surat Textile Traders Association vs. UOI [2017 (52) STR 478 (Gujarat)] and in the case of Calcutta Club Limited (supra) wherein it has been held that the services provided by the assessee to its members is not liable to pay service tax.
ECIL Rapiscan Ltd. Vs Commissioner of Central Excise (CESTAT Hyderabad) In view of the above, we find that this is a fit case to be remanded to the original authority to re-determine the amount of cenvat credit which needs to be disallowed, the interest thereon and the appropriate penalty as follows: (i) while computing the […]
Hindustan Unilever Ltd. Vs Commissioner of Central Ex. (CESTAT Kolkata) It is clear that the Revenue has suddenly taken upon itself the understanding that the Drugs & Cosmetics Act has distinguished the ‘toilet soaps’ that the content of 60% TFM and above alone are soaps and less than 60% are bath preparations which is totally […]
LCD panels are classifiable under CTH 9013 8010 and parts of LCD panels are classifiable under CTH 9013 9010. Denial of exemption benefit to the appellant as per amendment Notification No. 92/2017-Cus. dated 14.12.2017 was without any factual or legal basis.
Since there was a clear nexus between the appellant -company and all the co-noticees for the alleged violation of the impugned notification which extended the concessional rate of customs duty of 20% ad valorem provided the imported CPO was meant for use in manufacture of soap, therefore, penalty was leviable under section 112B on the main noticee as well as co-noticees for evasion of customs duty.
Quick Heal Antivirus software was held to be ‘goods‘, but whether the transaction would be sale or service, would depend upon the terms of the agreement. Thus, the transaction in the present Appeal resulted in the right to use the software and would amount to ‘deemed sale‘ not liable to service tax
Mails and other electronic evidence cannot be relied upon to prove undervaluation in absence of compliance of provisions of Section 138C of the Act ibid as held by Anvar P. V and S.N.Agrotech. It is trite law that statements can be relied upon only if they are voluntary and true.
The issue involved in the matter is whether the Cenvat credit of service tax paid on ‘Tour Operator Service’ used for pick-up and drop of employees of the Appellant to and fro Andheri and Kurla to their office premises is admissible as ‘input service’ under Rule 2(l) of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004.
