M/s. Kumar’s Electronics Vs Commissioner of Central Excise (CESTAT Chennai) Once the service tax has been paid on the M.R.P no service tax needs to be paid on the commission received by the distributor because it is a part of the M.R.P. If tax is so levied, it amounts to double taxation. This view held […]
M/s. Cenza Technologies Pvt. Ltd. Vs Commissioner of G.S.T. & Central Excise (CESTAT Chennai) Relying on Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. M/s. HCL Technologies reported in 2015 (37) S.T.R. 716 (All.) CESTAT allowed Cenvat credit on legal consultancy services. in HCL technologies it was held that “6. As regards Consultancy Services, these were comprised of […]
CCE & ST Vs L. Balaji (CESTAT Chennai) Conclusion: Cricket players were not liable to pay service tax on the amount received from the franchise as the money was not given by the franchise, rather it was the money received from BCCI directly for winning and not towards any services. Held: Revenue proceeded against the […]
Tessy Engineers & Enterprises Vs Commissioner of GST & Central Excise (CESTAT Chennai) The issue is as to whether the appellants are eligible for the credit availed on insurance services. The definition of input service with effect from 01.04.2011 excludes life and health insurance services availed for personal use or for personal consumption of employees. […]
Hallmark Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. Vs Commissioner of GST & Central Excise (CESTAT Chennai) During the adjudication proceedings appellants have contended that the said activities were undertaken before sale of land took place, hence the service was a self-service and there is no service provider and service recipient relationship and therefore they are not liable for […]
The adjudicating authority has rejected the appellant’s claim of it having made the refund claim on 27.06.2017. The first appellate authority has also concluded the date of filing of the refund claim was 12.07.2017 only as against which the appellant contends that there was an attempt to file the refund claim on 27.06.2017
CESTAT Chennai has held that import of second hand machinery cannot be subjected to imposition of anti- dumping duty (ADD) meant for new machinery. It observed that purpose of anti-dumping is served, in case of second-hand machinery, by way of re-appraisement of declared value, and imposition of ADD would be nothing but double jeopardy.
CESTAT Chennai has held that commission received/paid for issuance of corporate guarantee to associate/subsidiary companies is not exigible to service tax under Section 65(12)(a)(ix) of Finance Act, 1994.
Talentpro India HR Pvt. Ltd Vs Commissioner of Service Tax (CESTAT Chennai) We find that during the personal hearing on 12.2011, the appellants had submitted that delay in payment of service tax was purely due to financial crunch but have paid the service tax with a delay of one month and also paid the interest […]
Wipro Enterprises Vs Commissioner of GST & Central Excise Chennai Outer (CESTAT Chennai) The appellant is aggrieved by the disallowance of credit on rent-a-cab service. 2. On behalf of the appellant, Shri R. Rajesh, Head – Taxation of the appellant-company appeared and argued the matter. He submitted that the appellant is engaged in manufacture of […]
