15% discount extended by the broadcasters cannot be included for the purpose of charging service tax under the category of advertising agency from the clients.
Narmada Drinks Pvt. Ltd Vs C.C.E. & S.T. (CESTAT Delhi) It is well known that the bottlers receive concentrate from the brand owners such as M/s Coca Cola, manufacture aerated products there from and sell the same. Para 6.2 of the relevant show cause notice alleges that the amounts have been received from the brand […]
M/s Poddar Pigments Ltd. Vs CCE, Jaipur (CESTAT Delhi) Courier services stand utilised by the appellant for sending the samples to their prospective buyers and for procuring orders from them. Ld. Advocate also explains that they are not charging their buyers for the said samples, though duty is being paid by them on the deemed […]
CCE & GST Vs M/s Amar Lal Bhawani (CESTAT Delhi) Admittedly, the provisions of Section 2(f)(iii) provides deemed manufacture definition only when the goods are labelled or relabelled or MRP is altered, which itself establishes the fact of a fixation of MRP on the goods. In the absence of any allegation of fixation or alteration […]
The SCN dated 01.12.2006 had also proposed demand of duty on the cotton waste which stands cleared by the appellant in the DTA. The SCN also proposed including the value of such cotton waste for re-determining the DTA entitlement. But the adjudicating authority dropped the demand of duty on cotton waste. Against such finding, Revenue is in appeal before us.
The present appeal challenges the Order-in-Original No. 63/2013- 14 dated 02/09/2013 and covers the period of dispute April, 2007 to March, 2012. The appellant is engaged as a contractor on behalf of the Government Departments to collect sales tax, royalty and toll tax. The appellant participated in the bids floated by National Highways Authorities of India (NHAI)
S.K. Mohanty, Judicial Member –This appeal is directed against the impugned order dated 21/07/2011 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), Service Tax, New Delhi
By adopting the principles of harmonious construction and interpretation of rule, I hold that the appellant right to avail the credit at the time of coming out of the exemption scheme cannot be curtailed down by adopting Rule 4(1) of the Cenvat Credit Rules.
In such a scenario, by adopting the principles of harmonious construction and interpretation of rule, I hold that the appellant right to avail the credit at the time of coming out of the exemption scheme cannot be curtailed down by adopting Rule 4(1) of the Cenvat Credit Rules.
Ganesh Narayan Sharma Vs C.C.E. & S.T. (CESTAT Delhi) I. The construction works executed by the appellant were rendered under composite contracts which involved both rendering of service as well as supply of goods and hence such contracts are in the nature of works contracts. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Larsen & […]
