CESTAT Delhi held that the Ranger (non-electric) Vehicles deserve to be classified under CTH 8704 and Ranger (electric) and Brutus Vehicles deserve to be classified under CTH 8709.
CESTAT Delhi held that order passed by Commissioner (A) is without jurisdiction as the appeal is filed by the department before the Commissioner (A) against an order the correctness of which stood decided against the department by the Delhi High Court.
CESTAT Delhi held that extended period of limitation cannot be invoked in absence of suppression of facts with an intent to evade payment of service tax. Here, it was merely suppression of facts but intent to evade payment of service tax was absent.
CESTAT Delhi held that mere use of the word “commission” in the clause dealing with terms of payment would not mean that “commission” was paid by the seller. The goods were sold on principal to principal basis and payment to buyer was expenses incurred by overseas buyer and not commission. Hence, service tax not payable.
CESTAT Delhi held that services such as handling and transportation of mineral from pithead to specific locations would be a post-mining activity and would be taxable under cargo handling service or GTA service and not under mining services
CESTAT Delhi held that the transaction of purchase and sale of liquor by the Corporation will not fall within the ambit of ‘Business Auxiliary Services’ and would, therefore, not be taxable.
CESTAT Delhi held that maintenance charges towards the maintenance of documents and towards the security of documents by keeping the same at the premises of the appellants is rendering of service of ‘Maintenance, Management or Repair Service’ and hence demand confirmed.
This article delves into the complexities of service tax demand under the reverse charge mechanism, emphasizing the importance of analyzing transactions individually. We examine a recent case involving M.P. Audyogik Kendra Vikas Nigam (Indore) Ltd and provide insights on the matter.
CESTAT Delhi held that no service tax is payable as the assessee did not receive any consideration for providing a corporate guarantee.
CESTAT Delhi held that unless payment has been made for an independent activity of tolerating an act under an independent arrangement entered into for such activity or tolerating an act, such payment will not constitute ‘consideration’ and such activities will not constitute ‘supply’.
