Certification service by a Chartered Accountant was not included in the 11 services enlisted in Notification No. 59/98 (supra) which were taxable. And hence, the certification service being not included in the 11 services so mentioned was clearly exempt in terms of the said notification till 28.02.2006.
M/s Hindustan Coca Cola Beverages Pvt. Ltd. Vs Commissioner of Central Excise (CESTAT Hyderabad) The facts of the case in dispute are that the appellant availed on common input services and goods and obtained to the services reversed under Rule 6(3A). The only questions to be decided are a) whether the value of the goods […]
If the goods are moved out of the factory or into the factory they meet the definition of cargo and the activities of handling it is cargo handling service.
Once the workers come into the factory their services are used in relation to the manufacture of final products. But bringing workers to the factory or providing accommodation to them outside the factory or providing any other welfare measures for the workers or their families have no nexus with the manufacture of the final products, although they are welfare measures meant for the general well being of the workers who manufacture the goods.
The Ramco Cements Limited Vs CCT (CESTAT Hyderabad) It is not in dispute that the welding electrodes are used for repair and maintenance of capital goods within the factory of manufacturer and these capital goods are used for manufacture of the final product although the relationship is remote and not direct. So by no stretch of imagination can […]
CC, Hyderabad- Customs Vs Surya Telecom Pvt Ltd (CESTAT Hyderabad) As a creation of law, the Tribunal cannot go beyond the law itself. The validity of the Act, Rules, Regulations and Notifications cannot be questioned or modified by the Tribunal. Only the High Courts and Supreme Court which examine the constitutionality of the laws can do so. Unless […]
Services being architect services does not fall under exclusion to the definition of input service as per rule 2 (l) of CENVAT Credit Rules 2004, as the said exclusion is in respect of execution of works contract.
The appellant is registered with Service Tax Department for rendering Business Auxiliary Services. They filed a refund claim of service tax paid on various services provided by their service providers for export of Indian milling wheat during the months of October, 2012 to December, 2012 in terms of Notification No. 41/2012- ST dated 29.6.2012. Service tax is governed by Chapter V of the Finance Act, 1994, as amended.
On perusal of records, it transpires that the issue is regarding refund of Central Excise duty paid on various petroleum products which are consumed by the respondent whether it can be refunded or otherwise.
It was held that when the assessee has provided the required documents for justifying that the incidence of tax has not been passed on, it is for the department to show by adducing some material that the incidence of tax has been passed on.
