Essel Propack Ltd. Vs Commissioner of CGST, Bhiwandi (CESTAT Mumbai) To pin point the dispute, it is now to be looked into as to if CSR can be considered as input service and be included within the  definition of “activities relating to business” and if in so doing, a company’s image before corporate world is […]...

Confiscation of freely importable air gun of 0.177 by shooter on the ground that he was not a renowned shooter is irregular as the same is not in conformity with rules prescribed for such imports....

Arihant Udyog Vs Arihant Udyog (CESTAT Mumbai) As per the activity the appellant is only carrying out affixation of brand on the tools i.e. spanner by embossing/ engraving. This process alone does not amount to manufacture. As regards other processes which are carried out by the job workers, it prima facie appears that the independent [&h...

We are of the view that the ULIP surrender charges are not part of taxable service of management of funds. Rather it is in the nature of penalty or liquidated damages which is not a service and hence cannot be made liable for tax during the period involved . ...

Brief facts of the case are that the Appellant M/s S.S. Engineers are engaged in the sale of own manufactured goods and also engaged in trading of bought out items which are used in erection, installation and commissioning of Sugar Plant and other goods falling under chapter 84 of the First schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985....

M/s. Venus Wire Industries Pvt. Ltd. Vs Commissioner of Central Excise & Service Tax (CESTAT Mumbai) In this case, the U.S. Department of Commerce and European Commission issued notices to the assessee for levying anti-dumping duty on the goods exported by it. For the purpose of effective participation before the anti-dumping authorit...

Learned AR argued that Commissioner (Appeals) has wrongly interpreted Notification No. 21/2002 by construing that Mumbai Metropolitan Regional Development Authority (MMRDA) is a road construction corporation under the control of the State Government....

Kagal Nagar Parishad Vs Commissioner of Central Excise (CESTAT Mumbai) Revenue sought to tax the one time premium deposit, which is not refundable under the head of renting of immovable property service considering the same as rent. We find that there is a separate charge for the rent, which alone is taxable, the onetime premium […...

Commissioner of Central Excise Vs Consistent Software Technologies (I) Pvt. Ltd. (CESTAT Mumbai) In the present case the respondent is engaged in imparting the training and coaching in various foreign languages i.e. French, German, Japanese, Spanish etc. which they claimed as a vocational training and covered under Notification No.9/2003-...

Penalty under Rule 26 can be imposed only on the natural individual person and not on the artificial person or company because the goods is handled by natural living person and not by an artificial entity. ...