M/s. Rajhans Enterprises Vs Commissioner of Central Tax (CESTAT Bangalore) Commissioner (A) has allowed the appeal of the firm and set aside the duty demand and the penalty; however, penalty under Rule 26 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 imposed on the Managing Partner of the appellant-firm was upheld on the ground that no separate […]
The SCN dated 01.12.2006 had also proposed demand of duty on the cotton waste which stands cleared by the appellant in the DTA. The SCN also proposed including the value of such cotton waste for re-determining the DTA entitlement. But the adjudicating authority dropped the demand of duty on cotton waste. Against such finding, Revenue is in appeal before us.
The present appeal challenges the Order-in-Original No. 63/2013- 14 dated 02/09/2013 and covers the period of dispute April, 2007 to March, 2012. The appellant is engaged as a contractor on behalf of the Government Departments to collect sales tax, royalty and toll tax. The appellant participated in the bids floated by National Highways Authorities of India (NHAI)
S.K. Mohanty, Judicial Member –This appeal is directed against the impugned order dated 21/07/2011 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), Service Tax, New Delhi
By adopting the principles of harmonious construction and interpretation of rule, I hold that the appellant right to avail the credit at the time of coming out of the exemption scheme cannot be curtailed down by adopting Rule 4(1) of the Cenvat Credit Rules.
In such a scenario, by adopting the principles of harmonious construction and interpretation of rule, I hold that the appellant right to avail the credit at the time of coming out of the exemption scheme cannot be curtailed down by adopting Rule 4(1) of the Cenvat Credit Rules.
Revenue has demanded the Service Tax on the renting of trucks under the head of Supply of Tangible Goods Service. As per the facts of the case which is not in dispute, we note that the appellant have given the trucks to the lessees on monthly rental charges. The appellant did not provide any facility such as driver, repair and maintenance, fuel etc. Once the truck is rented out the entire possession and control is of the lessees and during the renting period there is no interference of the appellant.
Ganesh Narayan Sharma Vs C.C.E. & S.T. (CESTAT Delhi) I. The construction works executed by the appellant were rendered under composite contracts which involved both rendering of service as well as supply of goods and hence such contracts are in the nature of works contracts. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Larsen & […]
It is the case of the appellant that it did file its monthly ER-1 returns manually, without any delay but the respondent without verifying the same has imposed the penalty only on the ground that the ER-1 return was filed electronically beyond the prescribed time limit.
Learned AR argued that Commissioner (Appeals) has wrongly interpreted Notification No. 21/2002 by construing that Mumbai Metropolitan Regional Development Authority (MMRDA) is a road construction corporation under the control of the State Government.
