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service has an option not to avail the exemption and such exemption once exercised in a financial year, shall not be withdrawn during the remaining part of the year.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.
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.
