whether assessing officer is correct in rejecting the benefit of Basic Customs Duty exemption claimed by the appellant on the import of ‘GoPro HERO5 Black’ Action Camera?
EIH Associated Hotels Ltd. Vs Commr. of Customs (E) (CESTAT Mumbai) After considering the submissions of both sides, we find that in the first round of litigation when the original authority confirmed the demand and confiscated the goods with a redemption fine of Rs.1,00,000/-, the appellant filed appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) and the Commissioner […]
Services provided by NSDL to depository participants are aptly of ‘provision and transfer of information and data processing’, classifiable under (vii) of Banking and Financial Services as defined under Section 65(12) of Finance Act, 1994;
The respondents are, or have been, ‘surrogate’ providers of `broadcasting’ service in India, taxable under section 65(105)(zk) of Finance Act, 1994 since 2001 (and, more especially, with retrospective effect of the amendment incorporated in 2002), in the hands of `broadcasting agency’ as defined in section 65(16) of Finance Act, 1994.
NMC Industries Pvt Ltd Vs Commissioner of Service Tax (CESTAT Mumbai) We are unable to comprehend the resort to Railways Act, 1989 for a broader understanding of expression ‘railways’ in the absence of permissible referral in section 65(105)(zzzza) or (zzp), or, for that matter, anywhere in section 65, of Finance Act, 1994. In the absence […]
The issue to be decided is Whether the Appellant i.e. the service recipient could utilize Cenvat credit of Central Excise duty paid on inputs, for payment of service tax on services viz.Management, Maintenance or Repair, Copyright and Advertising, received by them from abroad, under reverse charge mechanism?
The issue under consideration is that whether Event Management Service, short term accommodation, storage and packing, Management, Maintenance & Repair, Business Auxiliary Service and Business Support Services these are considered as Input Service or not?
Sale of banking software to a bank was ‘commercial exploitation’ merely because the bank deployed the software in its normal business activities was not correct in the absence of facts that establish otherwise or of any evidence that such was the transaction between assessee and the customers, therefore, demanding service tax on the same was not justified.
Milk crumb was marketable and hence assessee-cadbury was liable to pay excise duty for clearing goods without payment of duty as revenue neutrality could never be ground for not demanding the duty on the excisable goods in the form and manner they were being cleared by assessee.
The issue involved is whether the appellants are liable to pay Service Tax on the rent received by them for allowing the harvesting contractors to use the Appellant’s bullock carts with tyres without any bullocks or driver for transporting the sugarcane to the sugar factories?
