Rejection of refund claim filed under Notification No. 41/2007-S.T., dt. 6-10-2007, as amended is the subject matter of present dispute. The learned Commissioner (Appeals) vide the impugned order dated 6-8-2010 has denied the refund benefit on the ground that though, to and fro freight charges have been claimed by service provider, no separate freight has been mentioned on the bills from Pithampur to port of export; that the service charges, namely
There is no provision in Service Tax Rules for inclusion of value of scrap as an additional consideration; only the amounts received towards taxable services are leviable to service tax.
Appellant is eligible for rebate of Central Excise duty paid on inputs used in the manufacture of export goods, even in case where customs duty component is claimed as drawback.
Issue of imposition of redemption fine and penalty has been settled and now various Benches of the Tribunal have consistently held that the redemption fine of 10% of the value of the goods and penalty of 5% of the value of the goods is sufficient punishment to the importer. Therefore, following the ratios of various […]
The definition of business auxiliary service may not cover the transaction in this case, as the main appellant is not promoting or marketing of services provided by PFL as there is no service which has been provided by PFL in the case in hand.
There are no operative legislative provisions of the Act legitimising the levy and collection of service tax from the appellants, for providing Club or association service, in so far as these relate to any services provided to members of these appellants.
Decision of the Division Bench of the Tribunal in the case of ASR Multimetals Pvt. Ltd. (supra) is correct and the appellant is required to deposit separately 10% of the amount of the duty confirmed/ penalty imposed, for preferring of appeal before the Tribunal against the order of Commissioner (Appeals).
These two appeals are against impugned orders, both dated 01/07/2010, passed by Commissioner of Service Tax, New Delhi. The appellant is an institution created by an Act of Parliament – The Employee’s Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provision Act, 1952 (EPMF & MP Act).
Honble Supreme Court and jurisdictional High Courts gave the rulings that reversal of Cenvat credit will amount to not taking Cenvat credit and accordingly benefit of relevant exemption notifications was held to be available to such assessees who reverse Cenvat credit earlier taken.
Appellant was supervisor to provide technical assistance for the purpose of erection and installation. Therefore Revenue is correct in its approach to bring the service provided by the appellant as Consulting Engineer, providing consultancy for the said service.
