A division bench of the Ahmedabad CESTAT recently held that Service Tax is not payable for screening of films in multiplex on a revenue sharing basis. The issue before the bench was that whether the appellant, M/s PVS Multiplex Pvt Ltd is liable to pay service tax on the screening of films in their multiplex and also whether they are liable to pay service tax under the head renting of immovable property?
In view of settled legal position regarding need for physical removal of capital goods or inputs, in order to attract the provisions of Rule 3 (5) of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004, we find that there is no justification to invoke such provision to demand and recover any amount from the appellant in this case
The Brand promotion fee was not taxable until Negative list came into effect from 01.07.2010 and hence there cannot be any liability upon the Respondent till that period.
The Bangalore bench of the CESTAT, last week ruled that limitation cannot be invoked for denying refund of service tax paid by assessee by mistake under the provisions of Finance Act, 1994.
They provide the SMS Aggregator services to M/s Facebook under an agreement for which the bills were raised to M/s Facebook, Ireland and the amount was received in convertible foreign currency. They filed four refund applications towards refund of unutilized cenvat credit of input services used for export of services in terms of Rule 5 of Cenvat Credit Rules,2004
Larsen & Toubro Ltd. Vs CCE (CESTAT Mumbai) This is an appeal has been filed by the appellants against denial of credit of service tax in respect of services provided to their job workers while doing their job work. 2. Ld. Counsel for the appellants argued that they were operating in Rule 4(5) of Cenvat […]
The appellants are in appeal against the impugned order wherein the demand has been confirmed against them on the allegation of clandestine removal of goods, on the basis of statement given by Shri. Kishore Aggarwal one of the appellant here, and the data retrieved from the Laptop of Shri Lalit Aggarwal and Shri. Vikas Varshney, […]
In this case the appellant itself has arranged for transportation and paid the transportation cost and the same has been recovered from the bottlers. The contention of the appellant is that they were under bona fide belief that the transportation cost is borne by the bottlers and they are required to pay service tax.
Next question needs to be considered is whether the demand for the period March 2003 to February 2007 can be enforced when the demand notice was issued on 14.9.2007. In the aforesaid case where the Honorable High Court observed that the in absence of time limit prescribed for recovery, a reasonable period, be applied for […]
These are 11 appeals filed by the Revenue against various impugned orders. As the issue involved in all these appeals are similar and the respondent is same, we take up all these appeals together for disposal. The respondents are registered with the Department for service tax purposes. They have filed refund claims under rule 5 of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 readwith Notification No. 5/2006-CE (NT) dated 14-3-2006.
