Tiger Logistics (India) Ltd. Vs Commissioner of Service Tax (CESTAT Delhi) To retain the container beyond the pre-holding period is neither a service provided on behalf of the client (Business Auxiliary Service) nor is it an infrastructural support in the business of either the shipping lines or the customer (Business Support Service). Such charges can […]
CESTAT Held that, no service tax is payable on notice pay in lieu of sudden termination, as it does not give rise to the rendition of service either by the employer or the employee, and compensation for failure under a contract cannot be consideration for service. Further held that such contract cannot be termed as declared service.
Hindustan Zinc Ltd Vs Commissioner, Central Excise & CGST(CESTAT Delhi) The issue involved is whether the appellant-manufacturer of Lead and Zinc Concentrates which are dutiable whether they are entitled to refund of unutilized Cenvat credit of i) education cess ii) Secondary and Higher Education Cess, lying unutilized (credit balance) as on 30th June 2017. I […]
Subhash Light House Vs Commissioner, Central Goods & Service Tax (CESTAT Delhi) ST not leviable on supply of gensets for short period as it is amounts to deemed sales The CESTAT, New Delhi in M/S Subhash Light House v. Commissioner, Central Goods & Service [Service Tax Appeal No. 50176 of 2019 Tax, Audit-II dated February […]
Cargo Specialist Inc. Vs Commissioner of Customs (CESTAT Delhi) CESTAT finds that it has been recorded in the final order that the appellant – Custom Broker inspite of having already handled eight export consignment in the past, till the inspection of the 9th consignment, has never met the exporter or the owner of M/s Fashion […]
The goods declared as scrap have been sold by the appellant to companies engaged in scrap management which have a certificate issued to them by the Principal Environment Commissioner, Rajasthan State Pollution Control Board, for procurement and recycling of scrap under the Hazardous Waste Management Rules. Further, the invoices through which these goods were sold to these companies also describe the good as scrap only.
Toyota Material Handling India Private Limited Vs Principal Commissioner of Customs (Import) (CESTAT Delhi) The issue that arises for consideration is whether the Principal Additional Director General, DRI had the jurisdiction to issue the notice. This precise issue was examined by the Supreme Court in Canon India. The Supreme Court observed that the nature of […]
Insistence on the part of appellant to deliberately classify their services under a different head shows their intention of escaping their liability for the previous period which amount to noncompliance with statutory obligations.
Held that, service tax will not be levied on the donations received by a trust from its members and on freight charges paid towards the activity of advancement of yoga. Further held that, activities can’t be covered under Goods and Transport Agency Service where consignment notes have not been issued.
CESTAT find that service tax was not leviable on the services provided by the appellants, which was paid by mistake by the appellants, thus, it will be treated as deposit, ipso facto, and are entitled for refund. Limitation u/s 11B will not be applicable as the amount deposited is not tax and, at best, revenue deposit.
