Penalty under Section 114A and other penal provisions cannot be invoked when the goods were permitted to be cleared by the officers. However, the Revenue will be free to recover duty along with interest in terms of the Notification.
The issue under consideration is whether the service would continue to be classified under CICS/CCS and changing the classification into WCS midway is permissible or not?
Assessee was not liable to pay the service tax at all as it was a statutory body discharging the statutory function as per the statute Karnataka Industrial Areas Development (KIAD) Act, 1966 and hence was not liable to pay service tax.
The issue under consideration is regarding classification of services, whether electricity bill paid on behalf of client can be classified as ‘Business Auxiliary Service’?
Insurance service provided by Deposit Insurance Corporation to banks was an input service and CENVAT credit of service tax paid for this service received by the banks from the Deposit Insurance Corporation could be availed by the banks for rendering output services.
YCH Logistics (India) Pvt. Ltd Vs C.C.E & C.S.T (CESTAT Bangalore) The services imported by the assessee are taxable services and are chargeable to Service Tax but they had not paid the Service Tax applicable on the same. The assessee were liable to pay the Service Tax on import of such services as a recipient […]
Deposit Insurance Contract is also a general insurance contract as defined in law and merely because they are statutorily prescribed, they do not cease to be contract of insurance. The insurer is the Corporation, the insured are the banks and the beneficiary is the depositor(s)
Manipal Universal Learning Pvt. Limited Vs The Commissioner of Central Excise (CESTAT Bangalore) Brief issues that require consideration in this case or as to Whether VSAT (Very Small Aperture Terminal) fee (both one-time fee for supply of goods and actual usage charges) charged for supply of VSAT equipment is liable for service tax under “franchise […]
appellant have reversed the CENVAT credit in their CENVAT credit account but the same was not shown in the ST-3 Returns because by the time refund was filed, GST has been introduced and filing of ST-3 returns itself was done away with. Further, I find that the appellant has voluntarily debited the refund amount in GSTR-3B during May 2018 which clearly complies with the conditions of the Notification.
Philips Electronics India Ltd. Vs Commissioner of Central Tax (CESTAT Bangalore) The appellants, Philips Electronics India Ltd. are a 100% EOU (Software Technology Park Unit) are engaged in developing and export of software. No part of the output services are rendered to any client in India. The appellants have entered into various agreements with their […]
