CESTAT not find any error in imposition of composite penalty under Rule 173 Q read with Section 11 AC as in the instant case all the charges have been confirmed and the charges pertains to both the period prior to introduction of Section 11 AC and thereafter. Therefore, penalty under both the provision could have been rightly imposed.
CESTAT Ahmedabad held that as the order is passed without examining the admissibility of input services credit under the main part of the definition of input service, the same is vague and non-speaking order.
CESTAT held that NSDL/CSDL charges being statutory charges as per SEBI Rules should not be included for the purpose of service tax.
Denial of refund of Service Tax paid on Banking and Financial Services – The said refund has been rejected on the ground that the appellant has failed to correlate the services availed with the exports of goods.
In the instant case no evidence has been produced by the revenue to hold that the amount collected by the appellant is exclusive of service tax or it has been separately collected by the appellant. In view of the above, we do not find any merit in the department’s stand that benefit of Section 67(2) could not be extended.
Dabur India Limited Vs C.C.E & S.T. (CESTAT Ahmedabad) Appeal No. E/10573/2015 is filed by appellant – M/s. Dabur India Limited (Unit-1) against Order-in-Original No. VAP-EXCUS-000-COM-014-14-15 dated 30.12.2014 and Appeal No. E/10574/2015 is filed by appellants-M/s. Dabur India Limited (Unit-2) against Order-in-Original No. VAP-EXCUS-000-COM-015-14-15 dated 30.12.2014. The issue in both these appeals is common. Therefore, […]
He pointed out that when trainees are employed by the appellant, the appellant spent a significant amount of time and money in training the employees therefore, the employment contract has various conditions put on the trainees. In case the trainee breaches any of those conditions, a specific amount is recoverable from the trainees. The said amount is also sought to be taxed under Section 66E(e) of the Finance Act, 1994.
Drishty Communication Private Limited Vs C.C.E. & S.T. (CESTAT Ahmedabad) The appellants were engaged in providing services as advertising service to get customize and were registered “The Indian Newspaper Society” (INS). They were remitting 85% of the total amount received from their customers on getting space/time from media agencies or news papers or various publications. […]
Nayara Energy Limited Vs Commissioner of Central Excise & ST, Rajkot (CESTAT Ahmedabad) The issue involved in this case is regarding the eligibility to avail Cenvat credit of the amount of CVD paid as debit in Served From India Scheme (SFIS). It is undisputed that as per Rule 3 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, any […]
CESTAT held Service tax not payable on ‘Software Activation Charges’ under taxable services of ‘Business Auxiliary Services
