The present appeal challenges the Order-in-Appeal No.8/2010 dated 24.02.2010. The demand covered the period 2004-05 to 2006-07. The appellant was engaged in providing Construction Service and Commercial or Industrial Construction service
All the three appeals are arising out of the same impugned order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) and as such, are being disposed of by a common order.
Kagal Nagar Parishad Vs Commissioner of Central Excise (CESTAT Mumbai) Revenue sought to tax the one time premium deposit, which is not refundable under the head of renting of immovable property service considering the same as rent. We find that there is a separate charge for the rent, which alone is taxable, the onetime premium […]
Coming to the controversy on rebate received from the postal department, it cannot be treated as a commission or an amount received for promoting the postal services. Such incentives are given by the postal authority to encourage use of franking machines, especially where the volumes are above a certain threshold level.
15% discount extended by the broadcasters cannot be included for the purpose of charging service tax under the category of advertising agency from the clients.
Narmada Drinks Pvt. Ltd Vs C.C.E. & S.T. (CESTAT Delhi) It is well known that the bottlers receive concentrate from the brand owners such as M/s Coca Cola, manufacture aerated products there from and sell the same. Para 6.2 of the relevant show cause notice alleges that the amounts have been received from the brand […]
Confiscation of freely importable air gun of 0.177 by shooter on the ground that he was not a renowned shooter is irregular as the same is not in conformity with rules prescribed for such imports.
M/s Poddar Pigments Ltd. Vs CCE, Jaipur (CESTAT Delhi) Courier services stand utilised by the appellant for sending the samples to their prospective buyers and for procuring orders from them. Ld. Advocate also explains that they are not charging their buyers for the said samples, though duty is being paid by them on the deemed […]
CCE & GST Vs M/s Amar Lal Bhawani (CESTAT Delhi) Admittedly, the provisions of Section 2(f)(iii) provides deemed manufacture definition only when the goods are labelled or relabelled or MRP is altered, which itself establishes the fact of a fixation of MRP on the goods. In the absence of any allegation of fixation or alteration […]
Commissioner of Central Excise Vs Consistent Software Technologies (I) Pvt. Ltd. (CESTAT Mumbai) In the present case the respondent is engaged in imparting the training and coaching in various foreign languages i.e. French, German, Japanese, Spanish etc. which they claimed as a vocational training and covered under Notification No.9/2003-ST and 24/2004-ST. The very identical issue […]
