CESTAT Chennai held that as per explanation to section 65(105)(zzzh) was added on 01/07/2010, builder/ developer/ promoter getting residential complex constructed for his customer and entering into individual agreements will be treated as deemed provider of construction of residential complex service. Accordingly, no liability of service tax will arise prior to 01/07/2010.
CESTAT Chennai held that services rendered to the domestic vendors by procuring orders from foreign companies rendered are classifiable under Support Services of Business or Commerce (SSBC) and not under Business Auxiliary Service (BAS).
CESTAT Chennai held that as per circular F. No. B43/1/97-TRU dated 06/06/1997 services provided by a licensed Custom House Agent in very broad way, to include any service provided to a client in relation to the entry or departure of conveyances or the import or export of goods. Accordingly, whole range of activity is covered under CHA service.
CESTAT Chennai held that unjust enrichment is not applicable to refund consequent upon finalization of provisional assessment under Rule 9B of Central Excise Rules, 1944.
CESTAT Chennai held that appellant for the first time submitted certificate from the buyer reflecting that price in the supply order is without excise duty and also certificate from Chartered Accountant establishing that incidence of duty has not been passed on. Accordingly, matter remanded for deciding refund on that basis.
CESTAT Chennai held that input service credit when distributed by the Input Services Distributor (ISD), cannot be held as inadmissible on the pretext that such invoices did not contain all the particulars as required in terms of Rule 4A of CCR 2004.
Servocraft HR Solutions Private Limited Vs Commissioner of Central Excise and Service Tax (CESTAT Chennai) CESTAT Chennai held that Show Cause Notice ought not to be issued when the assessee has paid Service Tax along with interest on being pointed out. Accordingly, penalty imposed under section 77 and section 78 of the Finance Act, 1994 […]
CESTAT Chennai held that extended period of limitation not invocable as there is no suppression of facts with the intend to evade payment of tax. Accordingly, order dismissed on the grounds of limitation.
The issue to be decided is whether the rejection of the request to transfer the cenvat credit balance to the lessee unit is legal and proper.
Core Minerals Vs Commissioner of Service Tax (CESTAT Chennai) Notification No. 17/2009 dated 07.07.2009 only requires the production of documents and it is not in dispute that the appellant had indeed produced the documents (though a few photocopy of some invoices). Thus, we are of the clear view that the appellant has complied with the […]
