CESTAT Chandigarh held that sub-contractor is liable to pay service tax on ‘Erection, Commissioning and Installation service’ even if the main contractor has discharged Service Tax liability on the activity undertaken by the subcontractor.
CESTAT Chandigarh held that the Registration under a particular service is not necessary for the purpose of claiming exemption under Notification No. 41/2007 dated 06.10.2007.
CESTAT Chandigarh held that sub-contractor is liable to pay the Service Tax even if the main contractor has discharged the liability. Accordingly, service tax payable on ‘Commercial or Industrial Construction Service’.
CESTAT Chandigarh held that know-how is not an Intellectual Property Rights (IPR) within the meaning of service tax law and consequently its transfer is not liable to service tax.
CESTAT Chandigarh held that job worker is the one who works upon the goods supplied directly or indirectly by the principal manufacturer. In absence of the said supply, appellants do not fit into the definition of ‘job worker’. Hence, demand unsustainable.
CESTAT Chandigarh held that Chartered Accountant certificate was provided for quantification of tax, however, the said certificate was not discussed. It is settled law that certificates given by Experts in the respective fields cannot be ignored without cogent reasons.
CESTAT held that contract involving both supply of material and labour is a ‘Works Contract Service’ which was not taxable prior to June 1, 2007.
CESTAT Chandigarh overturns dismissal of Johnsons Controls-Hitachi’s appeal by Commissioner of CGST on limitation grounds, citing lack of evidence for order passed and served date being the same.
CESTAT Chandigarh held that re-classification from ‘Commercial or Industrial Construction Services’ to ‘works contract service’ justified as contract and VAT registration proves that contract is work contract service.
CESTAT held that services such as Courier Agency, Exhibition, Insurance, Internet fall under Input Service, thus qualifies for Cenvat credit
