We find that delay is explained to some part. However, in the interest of justice, we condone the delay subject to payment of cost of Rs. 5000/- payable in ‘Kerala Chief Minister Relief Fund’ on or before 1st November, 2018
Employee do not have knowledge or reason to belief that goods are liable to confiscation under Section 111 of Customs Act, 1962, the penalty is not imposable on employee.
Real Value Promoters Pvt. Ltd. Vs Commissioner of GST & Central Excise (CESTAT Chennai) a. The services provided by the appellant in respect of the projects executed by them for the period prior to 1.6.2007 being in the nature of composite works contract cannot be brought within the fold of commercial or industrial construction service […]
M/s Shri Mahavir Industries Vs CGST (CESTAT Delhi) A proprietary unit is an individual legal entity and any refunds due to the proprietary unit cannot be adjusted or appropriated towards the demand which may be pending recovery against an another independent legal entity, of which the proprietor of unit is a partner. It has to […]
transportation of effluents cannot be treated as transportation of ‚goods‛ and hence there cannot be any service tax liability under ‘Goods Transport Agency’ as defined in Section 65 (150b) of the Finance Act, 1994. This being so, the tax liability of Rs.1 1,24,258/- and the penalty imposed thereof cannot sustain and are set aside.
The Commissioner of Central Excise Vs M/s. Coconut Lagoon Kumarakom (CESTAT Bangalore) it is seen that the ayurvedic centres are providing therapeutic treatment under ayurvedic system. Going by the mere fact that the centres are located in the resorts and sometimes the duration of treatment is for one or two days, it cannot be concluded that […]
Rohit Surfactant Pvt Ltd Vs CGST, C.C & C.E- UJJAIN (CESTAT Delhi) It is seen that the Cenvat Credits have been disallowed by the lower authority, vide the impugned order, by observing that the services fall within the exclusion category specified in Rule 2 (I) (C). This exclusion clause disallows the Cenvat Credit in respect […]
Similarly the services rendered by out door caterers is clearly distinguishable from the service rendered in a restaurant or hotel inasmuch as, in the case of outdoor catering service the food/eatables/drinks are the choice of the person who partakes the services.
Vasantham Outdoor Advertising Pvt. Ltd. Vs Commissioner of Central Excise (CESTAT Chennai) It is evident that the appellant was only renting out the hoardings which were either owned by them or leased to them, to various advertising agencies. There is no allegation that appellant had themselves made prepared displayed or exhibited any advertising on their […]
Preet Financial Services Pvt. Ltd. Vs C.S.T.-Service Tax (CESTAT Delhi) Business model of the appellant was such that they used to get commission from financial institutes for introducing customers. The said financial institutes used to pay commission in a fixed percentage on the loan amount disbursed to the end customer. After this commission, the appellant […]
