Issue under consideration is that whether the Appellants are entitled to avail CENVAT Credit on the input service viz. event management service?
The issue involved in the matter is whether the Cenvat credit of service tax paid on ‘Tour Operator Service’ used for pick-up and drop of employees of the Appellant to and fro Andheri and Kurla to their office premises is admissible as ‘input service’ under Rule 2(l) of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004.
Penalty under Section 76 of the Finance Act, 1994 can be imposed for mere default/delay in payment of Service Tax in addition to the penalty under Section 78 and these penalties are mutually exclusive and even if offences are committed in the course of same transaction or arise out of same act, penalty is imposable for ingredients of both offences.
Aviat Health Care Pvt. Ltd. Vs Commissioner of CGST (CESTAT Mumbai) It is worthwhile to mention here that ‘trading’ is a pure sale which is subjected to the taxable jurisdiction of the provisional Government and no Service Tax liability accrues from pure sale un-associated with any service component as has been elaborately dealt by the […]
M/s. Mediacom Media India Pvt. Ltd. Vs C.C.G.S.T. (CESTAT Mumbai) Observing that definition of input service was very wide and that the only condition precedent was that it should be the activity relating to business, CESTAT Mumbai has allowed Cenvat credit on outdoor catering services and rent-a-cab services for the period 2007-2010. Rule 2(l) of […]
For the period from 10-2-2006, the definition of the term ‘export’ under the Customs Act is not consistent with the definition of the term ‘export’ under the SEZ Act. However, the definition of the term ‘export’ under the SEZ Act shall prevail over the definition of term ‘export’ under the Customs Act. Therefore, supplies made to SEZ from DTA units shall be treated as export.
The appellant does not offer ‘convention services’ but gets events organised by professionals and, by collecting fees which are transmitted to such organisers, enables its members to participate in them. There is no allegation that any part of the fees charged by convention organisers is retained by the appellant. Thus, the activity is beyond the purview of taxability under section 65 (105) (zc) of Finance Act, 1994.
Commissioner of Customs Vs Reliance JioInfocom Ltd (CESTAT Mumbai) In the present case, the manufacturer of Antenna as well as the chartered engineer’s certificate, in clear terms clarified that the Antenna in question transmits and receives only signals and not performing any other function like conversion or regeneration of voice, images or other data signals […]
‘Casino vessels’ could not be classified as ‘pleasure boats’ as the vessel was a supply vessel used for transport of persons and goods, the correct classification would be heading no. 8901 90 00 which covers’ Other vessels for transport of the goods and other vessels for transport of both persons and goods’ and not under heading No. 8903 9990. More so, the goods falling under heading no. 8901 were exempted under Not. 21/2002 read with Notification No. 20/2006.
CESTAT Mumbai has allowed refund of Cenvat credit on export of Scientific & Technical Consultancy services. Considering the pricing method, it held that Rule 3 and not Rule 4 of the Place of Provision of Services Rules, 2012 was applicable.
