Gammon India Ltd. Vs Commissioner of Service Tax (CESTAT Mumbai) Mobilization advance is not an advance towards the provision of service and in the nature of loan facility. The ‘mobilization advance’ is adjusted against the final payment due and is not linked to the work but as a pledge of the contract between the appellant […]
The issue under consideration is whether denial of CENVAT credit availed by the appellant for construction/setting up of landfill is justified in law?
Classic Marble Company Vs Commissioner of Customs (CESTAT Mumbai) In this case The learned adjudicating authority has rejected the declared value in respect of the subject Bills of Entry under Section 14(1) ibid read with Rule 12 ibid and re-determined the assessable value under Section 14(1) ibid read with Rule 3(1) ibid, holding that sufficient […]
The issue under consideration is whether the service tax is applicable to the collection of Octroi for entry of goods in the discharge of sovereign privilege?
Gammon India Ltd Vs CST (CESTAT Mumbai) The Mumbai CESTAT, in Gammon India Ltd Vs. CST held that demand on Mobilization advance is not consistent with law and deserves to be set aside. Proviso to Section 2(31) of the CGST Act 2017 provides that deposits shall not be considered as payment made unless the supplier applies […]
The issue under consideration is whether the commission or agency fee remitted to entities for handling vessels outside India are exempt from service tax as per Section 78 of Finance Act, 1994?
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.
