Fertilisers & Chemicals Travnacore Ltd Vs C.C.,C.E.& S.T- Cochin-CCE (CESTAT Bangalore) We find that in the present case, permitting the students to use the factory premises for their research work as a part of their academic curriculum will not make the receipt of the appellant as consideration for services rendered under the category of commercial […]
Canara Bank Vs Commissioner of Central Excise & Service Tax (LTU) (CESTAT Bangalore) FULL TEXT OF THE CESTAT JUDGMENT M/s. Canara Bank, the appellant, is a banking company and a body corporate, conducting their operations in India. It was alleged by the Department that the appellants were acting as the agents for the Reserve Bank […]
The Commissioner of Central Excise Vs M/s. Coconut Lagoon Kumarakom (CESTAT Bangalore) it is seen that the ayurvedic centres are providing therapeutic treatment under ayurvedic system. Going by the mere fact that the centres are located in the resorts and sometimes the duration of treatment is for one or two days, it cannot be concluded that […]
M/s. Karnataka Exhibition Authority Vs C.C.,C.E.& S.T (CESTAT Bangalore) Karnataka Exhibition Authority had leased out the land having stalls, by way of tender”. We are of the considered view that leasing stalls and land will not fall under the category of „business exhibition services‟as held by the Revisionary Authority. The learned Departmental Representative has relied upon […]
C.C. Vs Warrier’s Hospital & Panchakarma Centre (CESTAT Bangalore) Dhatri Hair Oil and Dhatri Massage Oil fall under drugs and cosmetics falling under Chapter 30 of Central Excise Tariff as they have fulfilled the following conditions laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Dabur India Vs. C.C.E. 2005 (182) ELT 290 […]
Woodlands Hotels Pvt. Ltd. Vs C.C.E & C.S.T. (CESTAT Bangalore) A snack cannot be equated to a high tea; for that logic, it comes rarely closer to a ‘substantial and satisfying meal’. Therefore, it is to be concluded that snack cannot fulfill the conditions of the food being substantial and satisfying. Therefore, we are of the […]
As per the exemption Notification No. 6/2005-ST dated 01.03.2005, there is a condition which is to be complied with by the service provider and as per the condition, the provider of taxable service has an option not to avail the exemption and such exemption once exercised in a financial year, shall not be withdrawn during the remaining part of the year.
It is to be understood that the appellants are not basically an agency involved with the testing and certification. In fact, it is abundantly clear that they are performing certain activities which make the truck tanks fit to be filled with LPG for further transportation.
M/s. Rajhans Enterprises Vs Commissioner of Central Tax (CESTAT Bangalore) Commissioner (A) has allowed the appeal of the firm and set aside the duty demand and the penalty; however, penalty under Rule 26 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 imposed on the Managing Partner of the appellant-firm was upheld on the ground that no separate […]
Briefly the facts of the present case are that the appellants are manufacturers of different models of EPABX. They are availing CENVAT Credit on certain inputs and input services as per CENVAT Credit Rules (CCR), 2004.
