It is the case of the appellant that it did file its monthly ER-1 returns manually, without any delay but the respondent without verifying the same has imposed the penalty only on the ground that the ER-1 return was filed electronically beyond the prescribed time limit.
M/s. Indo Lloyd Freight Systems Pvt. Ltd. Vs Commissioner of Service Tax (CESTAT Chennai) As regards Brokerage commission of paid for booking of the export cargo, it is seen that the agents of shipping lines normally book the export cargo. The appellants actually get brokerage or commission for getting orders for the export of cargo. […]
Brief facts are that the appellants are manufacturers of Refined Palm Oil and are registered with the Central Excise Department. Show cause notice was issued alleging that they have cleared fatty acid or soap stock without payment of duty.
Ld. Advocate submits that the amounts collected from the tenants / lessees would only be in the nature of collection of reimbursable expenses and the ratio laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of UOI Vs Intercontinental Technocrafts Pvt. Ltd. – 2018 (10) GSTL 401 (SC) will apply.
The original authority rejected the refund claim on the ground that only photocopies of the Bills of Entry, TR6 challans and sales invoices were produced by the appellant. Thus, for want of production of original documents, refund claim was rejected, which was later upheld by Commissioner (Appeals). Hence this appeal.
The issue involved in both these appeals being the same were heard together and disposed by this common order. The parties hereinafter referred to as assessee and department for the sake of convenience.
M/s. Ford India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner (CESTAT Chennai) Regarding the tax liability on the consideration received due to termination of the arrangement, we note that no identifiable service can be attributed for such consideration. It is rather a termination of arrangement which itself the original authority held as a service. We note that by […]
M/s. Siemens Ltd Vs. CCE & ST (CESTAT Chennai) Lower authorities have inter-mixed the embedded software with the customized software supplied latter for monitoring and data retrieval from the device. From the discussions above, it is clear that a devise should suffer Central Excise duty along with essential operating software which is part and parcel […]
The Show Cause Notice has to be viewed in its entirety and cannot be vivisected as may be convenient for the Revenue. Thus, if a show cause notice is found as not valid or issued without jurisdiction in respect of the main protagonist, the very same SCN cannot be held as sustainable for other noticees like the appellants herein.
Appellant was supervisor to provide technical assistance for the purpose of erection and installation. Therefore Revenue is correct in its approach to bring the service provided by the appellant as Consulting Engineer, providing consultancy for the said service.
