The present appeal is directed against the impugned order dated 13.10.2017 passed by the Commissioner (A) whereby the Commissioner (A) has rejected the appeal of the appellant.
These two appeals have been filed by the appellant against the common impugned order dated 2.8.2017 passed by the Commissioner (A) whereby the Commissioner (A) has disposed of four Orders-in-Original.
The CESTAT, Bangalore bench, while allowing Cenvat Credit to M/s. Nvidia Graphics Pvt. Ltd, recently held that Outdoor Catering and Air Travel Agency service are Input Services.
The Bangalore bench of the CESTAT, last week ruled that limitation cannot be invoked for denying refund of service tax paid by assessee by mistake under the provisions of Finance Act, 1994.
Appellant is eligible for rebate of Central Excise duty paid on inputs used in the manufacture of export goods, even in case where customs duty component is claimed as drawback.
Issue of imposition of redemption fine and penalty has been settled and now various Benches of the Tribunal have consistently held that the redemption fine of 10% of the value of the goods and penalty of 5% of the value of the goods is sufficient punishment to the importer. Therefore, following the ratios of various […]
It was held that the Tribunal’s decisions are binding on the lower authorities and cannot be ignored on the sole ground that the Revenue may prefer to file appeal against the same before the higher authorities until and unless the same is set aside by a higher forum.
In the case of M/s. TNT (INDIA) PVT LTD Versus Commissioner of Central Excise and Service Tax BANGALORE-III, it was held that where the credit taken was based on the documents where service tax on the input services was paid in excess mainly on account of wrong calculation by the appellant.
In my considered opinion, the appellant fell within the ambit of “outdoor caterer” as defined at all times inasmuch as he was admittedly catering food to Dr. Reddy’s Laboratories Ltd. at a place owned by the latter and it is not the case of the appellant that he was the owner of those premises. In this view of the matter, it is held that the appellant was liable to pay service tax prior to 16.6.2005 also. For the period from 16.6.2005, there is no room for doubt inasmuch as the amended definition is explicit. Accordingly it has to be held that the appellant was liable to pay service tax under the head “outdoor catering service” on the catering charges collected from Dr. Reddy’s Laboratories Ltd. for the entire period.
The appellant being an IT related service provider, undisputedly, the recruitment of manpower was, obviously for rendering those services and what further details were required by the department are not forthcoming. Similarly, the ‘security agency services’ are used for securing their office premises. Therefore, there is no justification for interfering with the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) allowing refund of credit in respect of these services.
