Centroid Polymer Technologies Vs Commissioner of Central Tax & Central Excise (CESTAT Bangalore) Appellant submits that the appellate authority has rejected their appeals and denied refund on the ground that required documents in terms of Section 11B of Central Excise Act, 1944 as made applicable by Section 83 of Finance Act, 1994 have not been […]
Tribunal held that the foreign service provider being not covered under the term ‘Telegraph Authority’, the service provided by them will not fall under the definition of ‘Telecommunication Service.
The appellant had taken industrial lands on long term lease from Kerala Industrial Infrastructure Development Corporation by paying an upfront amount on long term lease, along with service tax. Thereafter, with the insertion of Section 104 into Chapter V of the Finance Act, 1994 with retrospective effect, the appellants requested for refund of the service tax paid by them on the upfront amount on long term lease of industrial lands.
United Spirits Limited Vs Commissioner of Central Taxes (CESTAT Bangalore) CESTAT find that the adjudicating authority has confirmed the demand in respect of various fees paid to the State Government in respect of manufacture, import and sale of alcoholic liquor. The adjudicating authority, though dropped the demand on licence fee, but confirmed the demand on […]
Deccan Mining Syndicate (P) Ltd Vs CCE (CESTAT Bangalore) Admittedly, the assessee appellant has only engaged the services of individual truck owners for transporting the iron ore and ore burden from its mine head up to the port and hence he would become the recipient of GTA service. We have gone through the findings of […]
Infosys BPO Ltd Vs C.C.E & C.S.T. (CESTAT Bangalore) We find that almost all input services used by the assessee in the case in hand have been considered by various Benches as well as higher judicial fora. Larger Bench of this Tribunal in the case of CCE Vs. Span Infotech (India) Pvt. Ltd. [2018(12) GSTL […]
MedGenome Labs Ltd. Vs Commissioner Of Central Tax (CESTAT Bangalore) As per Rule 3 of POPS Rules, the place of provision of service shall be the location of the recipient of service. In the present case, the location of the recipient of service is in abroad. Therefore, the service deemed to have been provided in […]
CESTAT Bangalore rules in favor of Anil Kumble, citing precedent. No service tax liability for services provided under agreements with M/s. RCSPL and franchisee.
Marketing Communication and Advertising Ltd. Vs Commissioner of Central Tax (CESTAT Bangalore) Section 11B prescribes time limitation for claiming refund of duty & interest, if any, paid. In the Order-in-Original, even though Appellate Authority observed that the appellant filed a refund claim of Rs. 20,38,157/- (Rupees Twenty Lakhs Thirty Eight Thousand One Hundred and Fifty […]
Tata Consumer Products Ltd. Vs Commissioner of Central Tax (CESTAT Bangalore) From a perusal of the impugned Order-in-Appeal, I find that though the appellate authority has taken note of the claim of the appellant as regards the inadvertent/clerical error, but has not accepted on the ground that the same was not brought to the notice […]
