It is the allegation of Revenue that the activity of changing the MRP/ affixing MRP stickers in their godown will fall within the deeming provision in Section 2(f) (iii) and consequently, Central Excise duty is required to be discharged in terms of Section 4A of the Central Excise Act, which has not been done by the appellant
Briefly the facts of the present case are that the appellants are manufacturers of different models of EPABX. They are availing CENVAT Credit on certain inputs and input services as per CENVAT Credit Rules (CCR), 2004.
It has been argued that they are using service of M/s Dialogue Corporation, USA for the purpose of data storage. It has been argued that the said service provider does not provide online services and there is no online service provider. In absence of online database access, no Service Tax can be demanded under the head of Online Database Access and Retrieval Service.
M/s. Indo Lloyd Freight Systems Pvt. Ltd. Vs Commissioner of Service Tax (CESTAT Chennai) As regards Brokerage commission of paid for booking of the export cargo, it is seen that the agents of shipping lines normally book the export cargo. The appellants actually get brokerage or commission for getting orders for the export of cargo. […]
Prospectus is only for the purpose of screening of students by way of Admission Screening Examination and is not a part of the services. The student only by filling of prospectus does not become entitled to get coaching from the Appellant.
These appeals are directed against Order-in-original passed by the Commissioner of Customs, New Custom House, whereby Ld. Commissioner imposed penalty of Rs. 2 lacs under Section 114(i) of Customs Act, 1962 on CHA, M/s. Daroowala Brothers and Company and also imposed penalty of Rs. 1.5 lacs on Shri. Pervez Irani.
Brief facts are that the appellants are manufacturers of Refined Palm Oil and are registered with the Central Excise Department. Show cause notice was issued alleging that they have cleared fatty acid or soap stock without payment of duty.
The appellant is registered with Service Tax Department for rendering Business Auxiliary Services. They filed a refund claim of service tax paid on various services provided by their service providers for export of Indian milling wheat during the months of October, 2012 to December, 2012 in terms of Notification No. 41/2012- ST dated 29.6.2012. Service tax is governed by Chapter V of the Finance Act, 1994, as amended.
Ld. Advocate submits that the amounts collected from the tenants / lessees would only be in the nature of collection of reimbursable expenses and the ratio laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of UOI Vs Intercontinental Technocrafts Pvt. Ltd. – 2018 (10) GSTL 401 (SC) will apply.
The present appeal is directed against the impugned order dated 13.10.2017 passed by the Commissioner (A) whereby the Commissioner (A) has rejected the appeal of the appellant.
