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 […]
The Brand promotion fee was not taxable until Negative list came into effect from 01.07.2010 and hence there cannot be any liability upon the Respondent till that period.
They provide the SMS Aggregator services to M/s Facebook under an agreement for which the bills were raised to M/s Facebook, Ireland and the amount was received in convertible foreign currency. They filed four refund applications towards refund of unutilized cenvat credit of input services used for export of services in terms of Rule 5 of Cenvat Credit Rules,2004
Larsen & Toubro Ltd. Vs CCE (CESTAT Mumbai) This is an appeal has been filed by the appellants against denial of credit of service tax in respect of services provided to their job workers while doing their job work. 2. Ld. Counsel for the appellants argued that they were operating in Rule 4(5) of Cenvat […]
There is no provision in Service Tax Rules for inclusion of value of scrap as an additional consideration; only the amounts received towards taxable services are leviable to service tax.
The definition of business auxiliary service may not cover the transaction in this case, as the main appellant is not promoting or marketing of services provided by PFL as there is no service which has been provided by PFL in the case in hand.
It was not even alleged that they collected a amount as ‘duty’ but not paid it to the exchequer. None of situation specified in section 11D is applicable in the present case. In fact, in such a situation, there should not have any grievance to the parties since the appellants had paid the amount whatever they collected and paid it completely.
The fact of the case is that the respondent had cleared their finished goods to their customer by valuing the goods on the basis of purchase order placed by them by their customers. However, consequent upon price escalation, their customers amended the purchase order and revised the price of the goods on the higher side with retrospective effect.
It is held that although contract, undoubtedly, designates the consideration in Indian rupees so that the service provider is not put to loss on account of currency fluctuations and merely because Service provider designates the consideration in Indian rupees, his Service Tax Exemption on Exports cannot be denied,
The appellant were selling the sim cards to their franchisee and was paying sales tax to the State and activating the sim cards in the hands of subscribers at a valuable consideration and paying sales tax on the activation charges.
