Vishwanath Projects Limited Vs Commissioner of Service Tax (CESTAT Hyderabad) Evidently, from a bare perusal of the contract, it is evident that the purpose of the contract is for providing floodlighting along the Indo Bangladesh Border in the State of Tripura and NOT for transmission and distribution of electricity. Merely because electricity is used in […]
The motor vehicles need not be used exclusively for providing cargo handling or other listed services. The mere fact that they have also used motor vehicles for some other purposes does not deprive them of their CENVAT Credit on motor vehicles.
The sale of goods was not a high sea sales which was affected after clearing from the Customs. Otherwise, NTPC, the buyer would have filed the Bill of Entry and cleared the goods. The mere fact that the bids for import were finalised by the respondent (MMTC) after approval of NTPC, would not change the nature of transaction.
M/s Nava Bharat Agro Products Ltd Vs Commissioner of Customs, Central Excise & Service Tax (CESTAT Hyderabad) The main issue to be adjudicated is whether palm oil fruit is a fruit entitled for the exemption of Notification No. 33/2004-ST dated 03.12.2004. Apparently, notification is silent about any definition or the classification of fruit and all […]
Oil India Limited Vs Commissioner of Central Tax (CESTAT Hyderabad) Refund jurisdiction of the Officers of Central Excise and Service Tax emanates from Section 12E and Section 11B of Central Excise Act, 1944 and Section 83 of the Finance Act, 1994. The powers of the first appellate authority to decide appeals or such decisions emanates […]
Debit note, even though not specifically indicated in rule 9(1), is an eligible document for availing CENVAT credit since the same is allowed by higher courts.CENVAT credit cannot be disallowed simply due to the reason that the service tax amount is mentioned with pen and is not pre-printed.
Hindustan Shipyard Ltd. Vs Commissioner of Central Excise (CESTAT Hyderabad) As far as the amounts received by the appellant from the Indian Navy for the purpose of upgrading their facilities at the shipyard are concerned, they are not linked to the present contract and hence can only be termed mobilization advances not linked to any […]
Order sanctioning refund by the first appellate authority (FAA) was upheld after rectifying the clerical/ arithmetical mistakes in the shipping bills.
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 […]
