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’.
CESTAT Delhi allows interest on auction sale proceeds from date of receipt by Customs Department, till the date of disbursal, in Oriental Trimex Limited vs Commissioner of Customs (Import) case.
CESTAT Delhi in case of Quality Builders & Contractor vs Commissioner of Central Excise, set a new precedent for service tax refund claims.
In the case of Oriental Trimex Limited Vs Commissioner of Customs (Import), CESTAT Delhi allowed interest on auction sale proceeds from the date of receipt of the amount by the Customs Department until the date of disbursal. The CESTAT held that the Revenue cannot adjust the redemption fine against the sale proceeds since the goods were not available for redemption. The appellant was entitled to the sale proceeds, reduced only by the amount of penalty.
CESTAT Delhi held that demand unsustainable as difference between value of goods shown in ER-1 returns and balance sheet duly explained with sufficient evidence.
