CESTAT Kolkata rules compensation received by Buyer on cancellation of Agreement to Sell immovable property not subject to Service Tax under Section 66E(e). Observes compensation for non-fulfillment by Seller doesn’t fall under ‘Declared Service’.
CESTAT Kolkata held that when there is no other price available at the time of clearance of the goods from the factory to depot on stock transfer basis, the only way available is to determine the assessable value based on the best judgment method.
Delve into the Rama Ferro Alloys & Finance Private Limited Vs Commissioner of CGST & CX case where CESTAT Kolkata rules in favour of the appellant regarding utilization of cenvated inputs in job work.
CESTAT Kolkata decision in Om India Trading Company Private Limited Vs Commissioner of CGST & Central Excise case, upheld the rejection of a service tax refund claim filed beyond stipulated time limit under Section 11B of Central Excise Act.
CESTAT Kolkata held that for the purpose of sub heading 27101920, the “light oils and preparations” are those of which 90% or more by volume (including losses) distil at 210 degree Celsius. Goods not meeting the requirements as specified under Chapter Note 4 of Chapter 27 cannot be classified under CTH 27101920.
CESTAT Kolkata upholds that Coal Mines Provident Fund Organization (CMPFO) is not liable to pay service tax on administrative charges in the absence of service provider-recipient relationship and consideration.
A comprehensive review of the case National Building Construction Corporation Limited vs Commissioner of Central Excise & Service Tax, exploring the impact of the correct classification under Section 65(105)(zzd) for construction contracts.
Delve into judgment of CESTAT Kolkata in the case of Pecon Computech Pvt Ltd Vs Commissioner of CGST & Excise, underlining non-applicability of unjust enrichment in context of Service Tax refunds
CESTAT Kolkata held that the extended period of limitation cannot be invoked in subsequent show cause notice, where the Department has earlier issued Show Cause Notice in respect of the same subject-matter.
CESTAT Kolkata held that as per substituted provisions of Rule 14 of the CENVAT Credit Rules, interest is not leviable where wrongly availed credit is only taken but not utilized.
