Sudhir Power Ltd. Unit-III Vs CCE & ST- Jammu and Kashmir (CESTAT Chandigarh) It is a fact on record that the appellant is manufacturing DG sets and enclosures which are dutiable under Chapter 85 of CETA 1985. The appellant is also clearing goods to the buyers under SFIS Scheme duty free in terms of the […]
M/s Canon India Pvt Ltd Vs Commissioner, Goods & Service Tax (CESTAT Chandigarh) The issue involved in the present case is in respect of levy of service tax on the amounts paid as salary to expats under the taxable category of Manpower Supply Services. With effect from 01.07.2012, the law as introduced by the way […]
The same issue has been dealt by the Honble Gujarat High Court in the case of Federation of Surat Textile Traders Association vs. UOI [2017 (52) STR 478 (Gujarat)] and in the case of Calcutta Club Limited (supra) wherein it has been held that the services provided by the assessee to its members is not liable to pay service tax.
It was held that Appellant is entitled to interest for the period from the date of deposit (deposit made during investigation) to till date of refund and also amounts deposited by way of pre deposit at the time of filing of Appeals, shall be entitled to interest for the period from the date of deposit to till the date of refund.
DLF Cyber City Developers Limited Vs CST (CESTAT Chandigarh) The sole issue is to be decided by us is that the Offshore Upfront Fee paid by the respondent is an interest or a fee. We find that if it is an interest then service tax is not payable by the appellant in terms of the […]
Cenvat held that appellant is not required to reverse Cenvat credit as the capital goods have not been physically removed from the premises where they were initially installed.
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 […]
