CESTAT Chennai held that extended period of limitation rightly invoked as non-payment of Service Tax has been detected and investigated by the Anti-evasion Unit of the Commissionerate.
Commissioner of Customs Vs Dimension Data India Limited (CESTAT Chennai) It is brought out that an amount of Rs.7,23,072/- was rejected by the original authority on the ground that Bill of Entry in regard to RSP based assessed goods has to be reassessed and refund claim has to be filed for the CVD paid by […]
CPC (P) Ltd Vs Commissioner of GST & Central Excise (CESTAT Chennai) The issue involved in all these appeals being the same, were heard together and disposed by this common order. 2. Brief facts are that the appellants hold Central Excise registration as well as Service Tax registration. During the scrutiny of CENVAT documents, it […]
CESTAT Chennai held that there is no Service Tax liability as and when the construction of flat is for the personal use of the service recipient.
CESTAT Chennai held that any other amount, other than gross amount charged for providing taxable service, which is calculated not for providing such taxable service cannot a part of that valuation as that amount is not calculated for providing such ‘taxable service’.
Fact of suppression, etc., has not been established by the Revenue to justify invoking the extended period of limitation
Jamals Vs Commissioner of Service Tax (CESTAT Chennai) The Learned Advocate for the appellant would submit, at the outset, that the appellant, being a developer, is engaged in the development of residential projects and the contracts entered into with its customers were in the nature of composite contract involving both service and transfer of property […]
Commission paid to the overseas agents is in respect of service provided by that agent to the appellant to export its goods and thereby sales is promoted and Appellants are entitled to the benefit of exemption Notification No. 14/2004 and not liable to the payment of service tax under reverse charge.
An airline may pay commission inter alia on various items, apart from the basic fare, which are indicated clearly in the ticket issued to a traveller. The basic fare is clearly indicated, followed by various other charges in such ticket. Hence, in our view, when the basic fare is so specifically indicated, the authorities cannot add or delete anything to the same to say that the basic fare should also include those other things.
The dispute in the present case is relating to the liability of the appellant under IPR service on Reverse Charge Mechanism (RCM).
