CESTAT Kolkata held that in absence of service receiver and service provider relationship, there is no service tax liability under reverse charge mechanism (RCM) for payment of service tax, vide notification 30/2012 ST (Sr. No. 9 of the table) dated 20.06. 2012 as amended.
CESTAT held that amount collected by selling study material is not a taxable service, hence, no service tax leviable on sale of coaching material.
CESTAT held that, there should be mens rea to evade payment of service tax for demand of service tax and penalty beyond period of limitation.
CESTAT Kolkata held that demand of excise duty in terms of rule 8 of the Valuation Rules not sustainable as correct higher duty already paid in terms of rule 4 of the Valuation Rules.
Delve into the pivotal case of Assam Company India Limited vs Commissioner of Service Tax (CESTAT Kolkata) where the tribunal addresses service tax liabilities, waivers, and penalties, offering insights for tax compliance.
Jute Cess will be payable only when the goods are removed from the factory and hence the demands made in all three Orders are not sustainable.
Visakhapatnam Service Tax Commissionerate has initiated separate action against the Respondent at their Visakhapatnam unit for non payment of appropriate service tax there.
Section 123 applies inter-alia to gold/silver bullion seized on the reasonable belief that they are smuggled goods. Burden of proving that they are not smuggled goods shall be on the person, who claims to be the owner of the goods so seized or from whose possession the goods are seized.
Hada Textiles Industries Limited Vs Commissioner of Central Excise & Service Tax (CESTAT Kolkata) Department had demanded duty on the cotton yarn in view of the Chapter Note I to Chapter 52 of CETA, 1985 on the ground that products covered under Heading No.52.03, sizing, beaming, warping, winding or reeling or any one or more […]
Hazra Iron Works Vs Commissioner of Central Excise (CESTAT Kolkata) Appellant has not paid the duty as per the ACP (Annual Capacity of Production) fixed by the Commissioner for the years 1997-1998 and 1998-1999. The Appellant’s contention is that they have not opted for payment of duty under 96ZP(3) and hence they are liable to […]
