In the instant case, in terms of agreement work-wear rented out always remains within the exclusive possession of their clients and nobody else can use the those work-wear at the same time and hence effective control to lie with the user/ clients. The appellant, therefore, does not have control over the use of the work-wear. Thus the activity is not in the nature of service under the Finance Act in both during the period prior to negative list regime and thereafter.
Commissioner (A) has not respected the order of this Tribunal required to be penalized. Therefore, the ld. Commissioner (A) is directed to take care in future to avoid any penal action from this Tribunal.
Arvindra Electricals Vs Commissioner of Central Excise & ST (CESTAT Chandigarh) Whether Electrical Contractor is exempt from service Tax under mega exemption Notification No. 25/2012-ST issued dated 20.06.2012. Yes, In the case of M/s. Arvindra Electricals Vs Commissioner of Central Excise & ST, Chandigarh it has been decided that services provided by by electrical contractor […]
Mittal International Vs CCE (CESTAT Chandigarh) Refund claim was denied on the ground that the said goods have been exported and drawback is allowed on the export of goods. The case of the Revenue is that as the appellants have claimed drawback on export of the goods, therefore, they are not entitled for refund claim […]
