There was a bona fide litigation going on as regards the nature of activity carried. As to whether activity carried amount to production so as to be covered under Business Auxiliary Services was a debatable issue
CESTAT Ahmedabad held that enhancement of value merely on the basis of NIDB (National Import Database) data without any other independent evidence is not acceptable.
Residential complex Construction service to Gujarat State Police Housing Corporation Limited for police staff is not liable to service tax
C.C. Kandla Vs Reliance Industries Limited (CESTAT Ahmedabad) We find that in the present case, the revenue has not challenged the merit of the case however their appeal is only on the ground of unjust enrichment. The Revenue contended that the learned Commissioner (Appeals) merely followed the order of Mundra Custom however he has not […]
For assessment of Bulk liquid Cargo duty is payable on quantity received in shore tank & not on quantity mentioned in Bill of Leading/invoice
Messrs Darcy Reservoir Consultancy Services P Ltd Vs C.S.T. Service Tax (CESTAT Ahmedabad) CESTAT gone through the records, various submissions made and the case laws cited before us. We find that the case laws cited (Supra) by the appellant squarely covers their activities under ‘Survey And Exploration Of Minerals Service’ and Department has sought to […]
CESTAT Ahmedabad held that difference is value declared on import of non-calcined petroleum coke by the appellant i.e. Rs. 2871.15 as against the comparable imports price i.e. Rs. 3701.20 justified based on the nature of supplies and long-term contract of appellant with supplier.
Sos Finance Vs C.S.T. Service Tax (CESTAT Ahmedabad) Limited issue to be decided in the present case is that whether the appellants are liable for penalty under Section 76 & 78 of the Finance Act, 1994. As regard, the imposition of penalty under Section 76 in the present case, I find the issue is settled […]
Gulf Oil Corporation Ltd Vs C.C.E. & S.T. (CESTAT Ahmedabad) CESTAT find that the cenvat credit was denied to appellant on the ground that service being classifiable under Sponsorship Service, the appellant was supposed to discharge the service tax under GR-7 Challan. We find that the service provider M/s. K.P.H. Dream Cricket Pvt. Ltd. has […]
Parthiv V Dave Vs C.C. (CESTAT Ahmedabad) CESTAT find that the exporter has made a serious offence by mis-declaring the quantity i.e. against 30,000 pairs declared in the export document only physical quantity found 405 pairs. Moreover, the value was also shown exorbitantly high. I find that though the appellant has acted as CHA and […]
