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 […]
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.
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-ST and 24/2004-ST. The very identical issue […]
Revenue has demanded the Service Tax on the renting of trucks under the head of Supply of Tangible Goods Service. As per the facts of the case which is not in dispute, we note that the appellant have given the trucks to the lessees on monthly rental charges. The appellant did not provide any facility such as driver, repair and maintenance, fuel etc. Once the truck is rented out the entire possession and control is of the lessees and during the renting period there is no interference of the appellant.
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.
It has been argued that they are using service of M/s Dialogue Corporation, USA for the purpose of data storage. It has been argued that the said service provider does not provide online services and there is no online service provider. In absence of online database access, no Service Tax can be demanded under the head of Online Database Access and Retrieval Service.
Prospectus is only for the purpose of screening of students by way of Admission Screening Examination and is not a part of the services. The student only by filling of prospectus does not become entitled to get coaching from the Appellant.
These appeals are directed against Order-in-original passed by the Commissioner of Customs, New Custom House, whereby Ld. Commissioner imposed penalty of Rs. 2 lacs under Section 114(i) of Customs Act, 1962 on CHA, M/s. Daroowala Brothers and Company and also imposed penalty of Rs. 1.5 lacs on Shri. Pervez Irani.
Kansai Nerolac Paints Ltd. Vs Commissioner of GST, Mumbai Central (CESTAT Mumbai) In this case demand was raised from the input service distributor who has distributed the service credit to their respective factory on the ground that the input service viz. air travel agent service, is not admissible as the service related to business activity […]
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.
