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
CESTAT held that SSI Exemption cannot be denied for Trademark Registration in Family Member name, Jointly in Family Members Name or in partners name.
If any duty was paid by job worker, would be availed as Cenvat Credit by principal anyway, this being revenue neutral situation, the demand has to be treated as time-barred. The same analogy can be applied even for sub-contractor and main contractor as well.
Extended period of limitation under proviso to Section 73(1) of Finance Act, 1994, would not be available on the ground of revenue neutrality.
Cost of transportation if collected in addition to price of goods and shown separately in invoice, needs to be excluded from assessable value.
In absence of issue in SCN on which duty is been demanded and in absence of evidence to show demand of duty cannot be sustained.
